Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was an Ismaili by birth and a Twelver Shia by confession, though not a religiously observant man. He had studied at the Inns of Court in London and was better versed in English law than in Shia jurisprudence, was never seen at an Ashoura procession, and favored a wardrobe that often smacked as much of Savile Row as of South Asia. Yet insofar as he was Muslim and a spokesman for Muslim nationalism, it was as a Shia. His coreligionists played an important role in his movement, and over the years many of Pakistan’s leaders were Shias, including one the country’s first governor-generals, three of its first prime ministers, two of its military leaders (Generals Iskandar Mirza and Yahya Khan), and many other of its leading public officials, landowners, industrialists, artists, and intellectuals. Two later prime ministers, the ill-fated Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his Radcliffe-educated, currently exiled daughter, Benazir Bhutto, were also Shia. Feeling the wind shift in the 1990s, Benazir styled herself a Sunni, but her Iranian mother, her husband from a big Shia landowning family, and her father’s name, the name of Ali’s twin-bladed sword, make her Shia roots quite visible. In a way, Benazir’s self-reinvention as a Sunni tells the tale of how secular nationalism’s once solid-seeming promise has given way like a rotten plank beneath the feet of contemporary Pakistan’s beleaguered Shia minority.

Benazir’s father came from a family of large Shia landowners who could afford to send him for schooling to the University of California at Berkeley and to Oxford. He cut a dashing figure. Ambitious, intelligent, and secular, he was a brilliant speaker, with the ability, it is said, to make a crowd of a million people dance and then cry. His oratory manipulated public emotion as the best of Shia preachers could, and his call for social justice resonated with Shia values. His party’s flag conveniently displayed the colors of Shiism: black, red, and green. Although he never openly flaunted his Shia background, he commanded the loyalty of Pakistan’s Shia multitudes, around a fifth of the population. What he lacked in the area of regular religious observance he made up for with his zeal for Sufi saints and shrines, especially that of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, the widely popular Sufi saint of Shia extraction whose tomb is a major shrine in southern Pakistan.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s years in power (1971–77) marked the pinnacle of Shia power in Pakistan and the high point of the promise of an inclusive Muslim nationalism. But the country that Jinnah built and Bhutto ruled had over time become increasingly Sunni in its self-perception. The Sunni identity that was sweeping Pakistan was not of the irenic Sufi kind, moreover, but of a strident and intolerant brand. Bhutto’s Shia-supported mix of secularism and populism—sullied by corruption and his ruthless authoritarianism—fell to a military coup led by pious Sunni generals under the influence of hard-eyed Sunni fundamentalists. In April 1979, the state hanged Bhutto on questionable murder charges. A Sunni general, Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, strongly backed by Sunni fundamentalist parties, personally ordered that the death sentence be carried out, even after Pakistan’s highest court recommended commutation to life imprisonment.

The coup of 1977 ended the Pakistani experiment with inclusive Muslim nationalism. Shia politicians, generals, and business leaders remained on the scene, but a steadily “Islamizing” (read “Sunnifying”) Pakistan came to look more and more like the Arab world, with Sunnis on top and Shias gradually pushed out. Pakistan in many regards captures the essence of the political challenge that the Shia have faced. The promise of the modern state has eluded them as secular nationalism has been colonized from within by Sunni hegemony.

122 responses to “Pakistan’s Transition from Shia to Sunni Leadership”

Benazir bhutto was not shiite by faith and her father z.a bhutto too was not shiite but a hanfi sunni (brailvi) even z.a bhutto’s 2nd wife was a Iranian Shiite but he was a sunni.
z.a Bhutto,shanawaz, murtaza and benazir namaz jinaza was done by a sunni brailvi mullah name mufti ibrahim iskandri and his late father who was a sunni mullah too.
If bhuttos were Shiite then sunni mullah would never have done(funaral prayer) namaz jinaza of them.
If one visit the graveyard of Bhutto family can see the names of 4 companions abu bakar,umar,usman and ali are written on the graves which is not the Shiite tradition.
During the z.a bhutto’s government a sunni hanafi(brailvi) Maulana Kausar Niazi (1934-1994) was a most powerful federal minister in Pakistan during the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government was made minister of religious affairs not any Shiite.
If any one have any doubt about Bhutto family being a Shiite, must contact the Pakistan government officially where all the information’s about this issue can be find.
Zia ul haq was not a sunni he was a big wahabi.

Plz do not comment abut this contradiction of suni & shia for any one. it is useless who is or who was shia or sunni but now plz be serious abut present & future not past bcz it is useless to proof any one individuals or family as shia or Sunni
So always pray by heart for all Muslims for for all human beings that ALMIGHTY ALLAH keep us & put all Human Beings On right path, the path which ALLAh described briefly in First “surah e Fathiha” Of Quran
Always Pray by heart For ALL, in the way which ALLAH told to us.

Raleigh, N.C.: Please explain Muslim burial customs and how they relate to the funeral today. Also, what was Bhutto’s relationship to Islam? She was Sunni, right? What branch, etc.?

Syeda Abida Hussain: She was a Sunni Muslim and in the Muslim way the dead body is bathed and cleaned and wound in a white sheet and the sheet is placed in a casket which is lowered into the ground. She was buried beside her father in the family mausoleum.

Benazir, to the best of my knowledge, was a firmly believing Muslim. She was not ritualistic but she had great faith in the creator of the universe in his infinity and in his goodness and in his mercy.

Mind, syeda abida hussain is well known politician in Pakistan and Former Ambassador to the U.S and a top leader of Pakistan people’s party. Abida hussain is from a feudal Shiite family of Punjab.

It doestnt matter if u r shia or sunni,but to be a muslim is a matter of proud,incase of Z.ali bhutto and benazir bhutto they were sunni and rest of the thier family is sunni as well,i m from larkana and i know who they r shia or sunni?wikipedia gives information to the people but it should be right one,i offerred the funneral of benazir bhutto shaheed,i was in 4th line while performing her funeral prayer.the sunni mulla hafiz abdul rahim has lead the funeral prayer.i hope this information will reach to the general public who wants to know about bhutto family.

I am Sunni Muslim. But I accept that Benazir Bhuto was Shia Muslim because on his return after exile she wear something on right arm written YA IMAM ALI RAZA. also in his all homes even in Dubai,UK or Pakistan I see in several videos that they have some names like shia use in homes. Like when Bilawal do first press conference whole World clearly see that on the back they have scenry with Shia wording about Hazrat Ali r.a
Further, Zulfiqar junior and Fatima also commonly use to go shia festivels.These politicians try to hide their faith bcoz in Pakistan majority of peoples are sunni. So they dont want to hurt anyone, It does not matter someone suni or shia. Legends are always legends.

I don’t really see the importance. Doesn’t it all just root from who should be the caliphate? So why does it really matter? we all believe in the same thing and just disagree about who should have lead the muslims after Muhammad’s (PBUH) death. surely that does not matter in modern day society where there is no long a caliphate? yes, the rituals may be slightly different because we see different people as martayrs but we all really believe the same thing. we are all allah’s children and therefore what does a silly historical row matter these days? i just don’t understand and i don’t think i know enough about the conflict. can someone please explain?

@Majid and @Hassan Ali
Hi!!
Yaar apni Bakwaas Bannd karo!!
Just by saying lies about her you cant change the reality!!Abida Hussain herself i a strong Shia Muslim from Jhang,and Believe Benazir was too a Shia!!She had Two Namaz-e-Janazas like her father and Quaid-e-Azam had,one was in private in a shia way because of their faith and other one for the public in the Sunni way!!Every extremist knows that fact that Zia-ul-haq a Wahabi hanged and killed Zulfiqar Ali bhutto due to American pressure and his personal grudge with the Shias!!
And during his reign he tried to hide the facts about the Quiad-e-Azam being shia by putting a Judicial inquiry in it ,and falsely declaring that Quiad-e-Azam had never mentioned what he was!!
Even their is a proof in his nikah nama and his Sister said so,and even his sunni friend Laiquat Ali khan declared that he was a Shia!!
By the way where the hell you get all this false info!!
I am not a Shia but still these facts cant be denied!!

Now come to the point: Z.A Bhutto and her family is 101% Sunni. Z.A Bhutto himself visited many times to the “Great Sunni Saint of his time Muhammed Qasim Qadiri Rashidi of Mashwari Shareef, Larkana Sindh.”

Apart from that Z.A also visited the another famous saint of Qambar Shareef “Qibla Syed Ghulam Hussain Shah Bukhari.”

Benazeer Bhutto also visited the “Qibla Syed Ghulam Hussain Shah Bukhari.” 3 times. When she came back from Dubai on 18th october, few days later she visted the Qibla Syed Ghulam Hussain Shah Bukhari, i’ve video as well as picture of that.

i am a great admirer of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto not Benazir Bhutto. I am a firm sunni and strong follower of Sahaba’s(R.A). Dear, for many times i have tried to search that was Mr. Bhutto a shia or sunni. but i never found a satisfying answer. can you help me please in this matter. i will be highly thankful to you.
waiting for your reply

hmmm… interesting point… but then, you say that it was evident that they are sunni but people above say they also went to shia places… i thougt ZAB was definatly sunni and his wife was shia for definate but maybe benazir kept people guessing for political reasons as, afterall, she knew she would go into politics from 1979 onwards at least! if im honest, i do not know much about the difference seen as i am sufi. Obviously i know the basics but are they really that different? is it possible that she could have been kind of in between? In her reconciliation book she talks of how both are good in their own ways… maybe im missing the point, i really should find out more about shia islam!

One more clear proof of bhutto family and she (benazir) was not Shiite.
Watch the video clip and see she (benazir) was a member of a sunni brailvi religious organistion
Minhaj ul quran .
Now don’t name minhaj ulquran a Shiite organisation and tahir qadri a Shiite scholar? lol

It is not true that minhaj ulquran is not a sunni organisation and shias are not the member of it?
Here is the link

I am a strong shia believer.
I think Bainazeer and her father were shia muslim but they used to hide being in a sunni state.
it doest not matter weather they were shia or sunni, but they were great leaders.

I watched ur video and was very interesting but I thought that Minhaj-ul-Quran was a non- sectarian NGO? I thought is was just a moderate group which aims to promote Islam and moderate interpretations which relate to the modern world and Islam’s role in science. in fact, i thought its key aim was to bridge sectariansim within islam and also to promote good relations with other religions? so therefore she could join this and be either!?

I agree with you brother ukpak but mind Minhaj ul quran is mainly known as a
Sunni school of thought religious, social organisation and its leader professor tahir qadri is a disciple of a great branch of stem of SufismQadriya. So it is very unlikely a shia will join it? As we know the leader of qadri silsala
Sheikh abdul qadir jilani Ghuas azam is not in the good book of shia’s.

Brother majid1969, you make a very good point and it is unlikely a shia would join! But i suppose it is still possible – if unlikely?! I have also been told that she was relgious but not very ritualistic and so maybe is it possible she could have been on the brink of the two sects? i mean… obviously they waver vastly in rituals and as to whom they celebrate and the caliphate question but interpretations of the qaran are largely similar I thought? Or at least between moderate sects which i am sure is what she would have followed. In her book Reconcilliation, she praises both sunni and shia and the basis of both and states how it is tragic that they have broken appart in the ways they have. Surely she would at least hint as to which side she falls down upon in her book as, afterall, true beliefs are somewhat hard to conceal usually?! Maybe she purposefully defined herself as neither due to her beliefs that the ummah should unite after all this time? And therefore did not submerge in such sunni/shia rivallries?

Salam to all,
I read all the above replies, according to my information Quaid-e-azam was a Pure shia muslim but ZAB and his family are Maulai, Maulai are those people who are sunni but they have beleive that the Hazrat Ali(R.A) was the Prohphet (P.B.U) nominated persons to be a Caliph after Him(P.B.U)

You have to correct yourself first everyone knows Kalmae Shahadat and plus some more beliefes like belief on Khatmay nabuwat, belief on judgment day, belief on prophets(RA) etc are basic conditions to be a muslim so if someone says Hazrat Abu Baker(R.A) or Hazrat Ali(R.A) was the actual person doesnt effect his/her basic faith but he/she can be responsible for the sin if any of them misbehaves with prophet’s companions(R.A). Also if you travel to the interior sindh or interior punjab you will find a large number of people who called thierself mulai you can ask them why they called thierself mulai. It is important to note that they follow Sunni way to pray and other religious responsibilities. I will be grateful if you dont try to be mufti by doing fatawah this is drawback of our nation they dont have tolerance. You were looking very nice in above replies but suddenly you lost your way. Take care yourself and your family

asaalam alekum
i want to tell everybody that we all r muslim and we should not abuse any khalifah at all 4 khalifah r like brothers they never show interest in kingdom they just love muhammed [p.b.u.h]we can never be like them they our prophet will never like us abuse these personalities if u want to abuse then abuse salman rushdie and the people who r against islam not the people whom because is islam thank pleas understand what i m taking

Dear Bors and Sis. I am 70 years old so please listen to me. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a Shia Muslim. He did not follow Sunnism. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was a Maulai but primarily belonged to a Shia Muslim family. Benazir did not lean towards any specific faith but after getting married and facing lots of problems started leaning towards religion but not any specific faith.
However, I must say that we should focus on being a good person rather than arguing who follows Sunnism or who is Shia. In the end, we all be questioned: what have we done good in this world? If we pray 5 times, observe fasting regularly, do Haj, distribute poor rate, we will get the benefit in the hereafter. But those actions will be turned back to us negatively if our deeds are bad, if we lie, if we kill, or if we criticize other faiths including believers of other books.
And yes, General Zia was a big wahabi and is responsible for all this current mess in Pakistan.

I agree with Dooper999. We all are muslim brothers including brelvi, deobandi, shia, wahabi etc we have to think as a whole ummah and try to follow thier own path to get closed with the God instead of throwing the shit on the other sects. In india these all sects are very closed with each other it is surprised for me that why do they fight in Pakistan.

Excuse me my brother and sisters for hampering your heated discussions, but I would just like to add that all these people who you are discussing were politicians.
Have you people ever been curious to find out the sect of the doctor which is busy saving a dying patient?
Realize!! Our country has always been such a patient and it requires the youths time.
Please dont waste the patients medicine(your time in such blogs) otherwise it would die before time.

if you are a patriotic nationalist then your religious belief is your personal matter. Mr. Jinnah Said

” …… and his life, his property and his religious belief should be fully protected by the state at any cost. And I am sure with your support and cooperation to making Pakistan one of the greatest nation of the world.”

I am a shia muslim but never want to enforce my ideology upon others. My all friends are sunni muslims, they also have the same thinking. I always want that my country’s leaders should be loyal to motherland and good human beings regardless of their religious believes. Kindly stop discussing such irrelevant issues and think that how we can make progress in this 21st century.

In politics nobody is shia or sunni its abt getting vote from both sects . well forget abt shia and sunni we should praise all those who made Pakistan a prosperous nation like ZAB and curse all those who used islam to reign and control their country like Zia ul haq . MAY ALLAH SEND ZIA TO DEEPEST OF HELL for creating secetarianism in Pakistan amin

I have read all of the above comments and the common factor that I have found is that “It’s ok to bash/insult wahabis”,WHY ? Shia, sunni, deobandi, barelvi etc etc all are acceptable but WAHABIS. Please create and practice a tolerant behaviour even with people who do not agree with you. Lookout for Shaitaan inside you and not outside or maybe you are accusing the person in the mirror. The people who understand they know that the “Witch Hunt” never ends. Once you eliminate all of the Wahabis you will find somebody else to accuse. Because that’s all you know is to point fingers at others. Thanks Asim

I’m a Muslim from Bangladesh and belong to the Hanbali (Salafi) School of Thought. I don’t care whether the Bhutto Family is Shia or Sunni. All I care is that, Z A Bhutto was a hypocrite who broke the integrity of Pakistan in 1971 for selfish reasons. But I regard his daughter, Benazir Bhutto, as a champion of democracy in Pakistan with great respect. In my point of view, the so-called Shia-Sunni Division is deeply related to the Zionist conspiracy and tremendous efforts must be taken in order to prevent further splits among Muslims. However, I believe it was the Shiites who at first diverted themselves from the orthodox principles of a glorious Islam and General Zia was not a Wahhabi but a slave of the USA who tactically carried out his enforced duties.

Oh my brother Nabil, just think about your own country don’t be involved in Pakistani issues. Unfortunately everyone is the mufti-e-azam in muslims, we are in the top of the third world contries but still didnt come out from the debates of shia and sunni. Please dont try to put your leg and think only about your own sect and country.

I read all of above messages and i found Raja has some courage to face and listen what is truth and have mind to understand others points or even think but i am sorry to say that Mr. Majid has nothing in his skul.come on leave all this aside and just think about your country and other muslim countries when non muslim bombard then they never asked from them”are you Shia or Sunni”for them Shia Iran and Sunni Iraq are very equal.
just try to get out your feet from those shoes who orthodox Mullah gave you in gift.
Yes it is very right to say that Zia-ul-Haq is man culprit of all this what is going on here since 1979.
Bhutto family is shia or not it is not an issue of today if we will prove that Bhutto family is shia or Sunni it will not cause prosperity in our country just get up and work harder than before.
May ALLAH Pak bless all you(Ameen)

I wanna say one thing here Muhammed Ali Jinnah was Shia Ismaili he was not just shia he was Shia ismaili, he was a khoja of Gujrat and his faith was Ismailism(Aga khani) Muslim. Ismailis of India are also known as khojas. His surname was poonja, i am Ismaili too and all poonjas are ismailis.

Muhammed Ali Jinnah was a shia ismaili by birth but he converted to shia 12 imamia as he accepted himself. check the link below.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah.
Not all Khojas are ismaili. There is a large population of khoja shia 12 imami in pakistan and india.

hahahahaha Wikipedia you need to grow up my friend even i can go there and write Jinnah was a Jew,you can write whatever you want to on wikipedia lol.
Brother you can go to Supreme court of pakistan, In times of Zia Sunni ulema and Shia Ulema were fighting on this issue at last the court decided he was Ismaili (Aga Khani).
You can read his sisters book my brother Jinnah, You will get your Answer.

Yes there are Khoja Itna sheris (12wers) but they converted from ismailis to shia islam 250 years ago.
I have seen Sunni brothers claiming Jinnah was sunni loooooooooooooooool and same goes for shia brothers looooooooooooooooool. His first wife was ismaili. We even know their relatives. Unfortunately Fatimid caliphs were Ismailis tooo shia brother say they were shia (12wers). On wikipedia Its written Ibn Sinna(Aveecina) converted from Shia ismailism to shia (12wers) how come every famous person converts, The whole world know Jinnah or Aveecina were Ismailis. People confuse Shia 12 wers with Ismailis because both are branches of shia branch of Islam.

I love quaid coz he was a Muslim I don’t care if he was a Sunni or Shia. I said quaid was a Shia 12 imamia on behalf of the majority of the citation and references even on Wikipedia mentioned them. One thing is confirmed for me is that quaid azam was not an Ismaili coz he declared that Pakistan is an Islamic state and Islamic laws would be applied in Pakistan. Ismailis believe on the secularism and pluralism as we see in the life of Agha Khan himself, his daughter married with a Christian man and their dancing pictures are available on the websites. The website you provided is fabricated and there are several things clearly wrong in it and no detail about the quaid azam. These are issues which will never be resolved, just think about the good Pakistan do practice according to your believes and don’t touch the others.
Regards

Brother i will request you to Not bring in my Imam and his family in this matter that’s a different topic, even i can be disrespectful about your Imams after Imam Jafar Sadiq. And second thing Ismailis are as Muslim as a Sunni can be. Show me one country where Ismailis have been declared non-muslim, I challenge you. Even in country like Iran where Khomeini declared a lot of Sahabas Kafirs and Munafiqs. In 1895 Amir Abdur Rahman khan of Afghanistan declared Shia(12wers) kafir but there is not a single country that has declared Ismailis kafir.XXXP.
And as far as Jinnah is concerned he was born Ismaili and died as an Ismaili. Because of his Ismaili faith hardliner Muslims even used to call him Kafir Azam(NazubiAllah).
And Jinnah was the most Liberal leader of his time which a shia(12wers) can never be. Just read life history of Quaid-e-Azam how liberal he was alas those molvis who were against him and creation of pakistan now call him Babe Quam.

As far as declaring Pakistan Islamic State it was Sir sultan Muahmmed Shah Aga Khan the 48 Imam of Ismaili Muslims, who was also President of Muslim league now don’t say he converted to shia(12wers) looooooooool.
In 1935 when Jinnah wasnt coming back from london to fight for Independence It was Sir sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan(48th Ismaili Imam) who convinced him, but people say Allama iqbal, he would never listen to Allama Iqbal it was Sir sultan Muahmmed Shah Aga Khan. Jinnah’s Imam who convinved him, he would never dare to say no to his Imam.
Brother first have complete information of Pakistan History and then talk. I would say again dont be disrespectful to My Imam and his family.
Thank you.

ok if that website is fabricated here is another website Nation master.http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Jinnah
I am telling you again read any authentic documnet on his life you will know.
And i Just checked wikipedia it is written he was Ismaili :P.
99% of Sunni Scholars like Maulana Maududi say he was Aga Khani (Ismaili).
I wanna mention again Jinnah was very Liberal and used to believe in pluralism. His quotes like
”State has nothing to do with religion” Show his pluralistic thinking.XXXXXXPPPPPPPDDDDD.

In this link people are saying Jinnah was hindu his father christian he later converted to Islam, some are saying he was Ismaili. The thing is there is a saying in urdu
Jitne Mooo(mouth) itni batein.
Instead of arguing with anyone simply go to supreme court and get your answer. My uncle used to be in presidential Secretariat he has seen files thats why i am saying and in Pakistan’s bureaucracy Ismailis are highly respected because of Quaid Azam and sir sultan Muhammad shah 48th Imam of Ismailis.

Ok put quaid-e-azam in your pocket , we are happy with Allah and His Rasool (S.A.W). I can’t beat Jahalat. I pray Allah give us a lot of tolerance. There will be a miracle if we see any positive change in Pakistan in these conditions (when everyone got a sword in his hands). Anyway I apologise if I hurt you.
Please remember me in your prayers.
Regards

Discussion about Quaid e Azam that was he shia.
There was only one Namaz e Janaza of Quaid e Azam performed by Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and that was wish of Quaid e Azam. Quaid e Azam never went to any Ismaili Jamat Khana and Shia Imam Bara.

And now about Shias and Sunnis. In Bangladesh below 1% the Shias, in Pakistan upto 15%. The Sunnis in Iran upto 15%. There is not a single Sunni Masjid in Teheran. Shah Iran started a project for Sunni Masjid but after his departure Khomeini and his so called revolution finished this project. For decades the Sunnis perform Namaz e Juma in the premises of the Embassy of Pakistan in Teheran.

There is not even a junior minister from a Sunni sect in the Iranian government. No president, no prime minister, no high ranking officers in army, police, government and semi government department. But quite opposite: In Pakistan the Shias have been ministers army chief, naval chief, airforce chief, prime ministers, presidents, etc. Asif Ali Zardari is Shia and president of Pakistan and queu of the ministers, advisers is Shia.

Shias says Pakistan is a Islamic state, not a Sunni state. About Iran they say nothing. According to constitution of Iran, Iran is a Shia state. The Sunnis are persecuted. Many Sunni Allamas have been killed, secretly by the squads of Iranian government since the so called Khomeini revolution.

If Iran is Shia state, why not Pakistan becomes Sunni state.

Being Bangladeshi after 1971, I want to express that the creators of Bangladesh are getting curse from Allah. Many innocent muslims were killed by the politics of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujib.

Please look and think over it that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujib and their families did not get natural death, all were killed.

Some facts:
Begum Shafiqa Zia ul Haq was chairman of Shia shrine Bari Imam, she was also head of Imam husain council Islamabad. She and Zia use to distribute Niaz on 10th Moharram.
Quaid e Azam was not Shia, he was trapped by Shia religious fanatics like Raja Mahmood Abad, Abul Hasan Isphahani, Abdullah Haroon, Habib Bank group and Hashim Raza Comm Karachi, Kazim Raza IG, Abid Ali Abid etc. Raja Mahmood influenced him to declare Shia state, when he refused, he never came back to Pakistan and buried at Iran.
Z A Bhutto family is not Brelvi Raza Khani, however Bhutto’s licentious nature pushed him to become Shia, visiting Dragah did not show a person is Shia or Sunni. Benazir was sold by her mother and adopted mother’s religion. Zardari is most arzal caste of Iran who were expelled from Iran. Moreover usually feudal like to become Shia because of Mutta, all prostitutes in Pakistan are declared Shia. Bhutto clan is Sunni but Nusrat Bhutto influenced Z A bhutto family, so all of sons and daughters married to shia’s, even Fatima bhutto visited Tehran in Shia dress, her pictures are available on google.
vali Nasr was hired by Bush to help him in Iraq invasion, and he helped Shia rising with american money. Not only he but Husain Haqqani, farahnaz Ispahani, Abdullah Husain haroon, Hasan Askari Rizvi, Khalid hasan, Najam sethi, Sherry Rahman, Rahman Malik and so many others were hired by CIA and provided jobs to propagate in favor of Iraqi invasion. Shia’s of Pakistan are politically with Iran and help to leak info to their intelligence agencies. Iran is providing funding to major terrorists Shia organizations, Kurram agency, Hazara’s, Northern areas, Karachi is main centre of their finance and influence.
Offering Namaz e Janaza does not symbolic gesture of faith of any political leader. Peoples say Shia Janaza of Quaid e Azam was offered in bath room with two persons. A bundle of lie, moreover a person says that Shia Panja was buried under bed of Fatima Jinnah, means she has been sleeping on Panaja, what a nonsense. Politicians are hippocrites, Benazir was later re-arranged for Nikkah. What a nonsense. Religion is a personal matter then why to make fool peoples.

The Shias not only in Pakistan but in the other parts of the world should accept, the Sunnis are oppressed in Iran, Iraq, etc. See in Pakistan that the Shias are in politics and high ranking officers in civil and armed forces departments.

Pakistan must become a Sunni state.

The rubbish from Shias is not acceptable.
Tolerance does not mean that the Shias rule Pakistan.

I don’t understand why we are so narrow minded why we don’t accept the Shias as our brothers. When I was a child I heard from my parents and molana that shia kill children and drink blood but when I grown up I didn’t find anything so why it was? I have several shia friends and no one said me anything wrong about sunnis. I have read Khomeni he always said there is no difference between shia and sunni. In out of the 57 or 58 Islamic countries there are only two or three countries have majority of population shia and they got Islamic states in Iran. What about us? we don’t have even one Islamic state. Alqaida is terrorist organisation represented by sunnis no one like it and no one support it whilst Hizbollah is a shia organization people love it even sunni and Christians. Iran is the only country who fully supports Hamas (sunni organisation in Palestine) and always raise the voice against Israel for Palestini sunni brothers. Why we don’t accept this? Suadi Arab calls USA for help in 1991 against Iraq and allows non-muslims to be entered into Kaba, why? There are several shias have been killed in Pakistan and still being killed I remembered in 1995 only 100 shia doctors were killed in Karachi. We don’t want to investigate we don’t want to read the books we just follow propagandas. I investigated about the actresses and actors and I found majority of them are sunnis including most famous porn actresses in 1980s Anita Ayub and Amber Ayub. Maria Wasti and Aisha khan videos can be found in Youtube. There is nothing belong to shia in Red Areas in Lahore. They get the money to wear black dresses and recites mourning songs. There are several other merasis who recites the mourning songs because they get the money. Ok just leave this thing and go into Egypt, Jordan, Libya and see the women dresses there they all sunnis whilst in Iran its hard to find out even one woman withoud Hijab. It is not the matter who is Shia and who is Sunni actual thing what is the right direction unfortunately we all stuck into these stupid debates.

You got infection same like the lot of other. There is too much work against shia on youtube and other websites if they are against us why they dont write? why America is fighting with Iran? why not with Saudia? Why Saudian mufti give fatwa against Hamas and Hizbullah in favour of Israel? and also why shias support in palestine and Gazza to sunnis. Just give me good answer of these questions I will change my mind.
If you travel by road to Iran it is written on the wall of the border of Iran “there is no difference between shia and sunni” said by Khumaini so why it is so? just give me the name of his books in which you find this rubbish I want to read. I give you the name of his two books just go and read (1) Chehal Hadis (40 ahadeth) and (2)Islamic goverment. I m sure you will change your opinion after reading these books.

4. Sahabah (r.a) became infidel by denying the divine right (Wilayat) of Hazrat Ali. First three caliph and other Sahabas became infidel by denying the divine right of (Wilayat) of Hazrat Ali. (Asool Kaafi, Page No. 420)

5. All the people rejected Islam after the death of the Prophet except three. Miqdad, Abu Zar and Salman Farsi. (Quran Majeed by Maqbool Hussain Dehlevi, Page No. 134)

9. Hazrat Abu Bakr (r.a) could not recite Kalma at the time of his death. (Israr-e-Muhammad, Page No. 211)

10. When Our Qaim (12th Imam) gets up, Humira (Ayesha) will be raised from the dead so as to be whipped her due punishment, and so as to avenge the daughter of Muhammad (s.a.w), Fatima. (Al Shafi, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 108)

11. Ali is God. (Jila-ul-Ayoun, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 66)

12. The Hujjat ( Ultimate proof ) of God can not be established without Imam. (Asool Kaafi, Vol. No. 1, Page No. 177)

What Khomeini wrote in Kashful Asrar please read the following sentences:
KHOMEINI ON QURAN IN HIS “KASHFUL ASRAR”

“TAHREEF (deliberate alteration of words to change the meaning of the holy books, namely, the Bible, etc.) is that fault which Muslims accuse Jews and Christians of indulging in, has proved to be found in the Ashaabs (of Rasoolullah – sallal laahu alaihi wasallam).”
(KASHFUL ASRAR, PAGE 114).

“It was easy for the Ashaabs (of Rasoolullah – sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) to remove verses from the Holy Quran and deliberately add verses to it, and in this way forever concealing from the people of the world the true Quran.”
(KASHFUL ASRAR, PAGE 114).

My Dear,
I am not against any person or system but concealing the truth is sin and crime.

Would these kind of ideas and ideologies mentioned above about quran and sahaba are for
unity?

I hope you will change your opinion after reading the books of Khomeini and writers of Shiaism.

Unfortunately, you are taking the debate on the wrong direction. I asked the different things but your answer is different and also asked the name of the book and page number in which Khomeini misbehaved with caliphs Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Abubaker (R.A), as you wrote above, but you didn’t mention that thing. I would like to hate him if he said so. The following quotations do not have any validity coz they have been condemned by Shia Allamas. I already know the several of these things on internet (probably you copy and pasted from there). First make the proper channels if you want to investigate. Please carefully read the following points.

• Asool Kafi is not the authentic book in shia. Its not like Saha Sattah in Sunnis. It is just the storage of the Ahadees which were collected in emergency when Ahadees were getting burnt in period of Abbasi Caliphs. As shia Allamas say not every Hadees is right in this book.

• I have confirmed from more than 15 shia Allamas about Ali (K.A.W) status. Ali or anyone is not better than Prophet (S.A.W). Allah is the greatest (wahdahu La Shareka Lahu) and after that Prophet (S.A.W) in the eyes of Shias.

• There is a Group usually originated from Syria called NUSARI, they say Ali is the God NOT shia. Same as Qadyanis in Sunnis who deny prophet (S.A.W) is a last prophet of Allah.

• Allah Says in Quran “We delivered this message (Quran) and we will look after it”. (Surah Hijer Ayat 9), after that no one can say Quran is edited or changed (Tehreef). Shia has same believe like Sunni in this Issue. (Plz read 20 Jawab published by Darus-saqafa Karachi).

• Hazrat Tumhari Das or Maqbool Ahmed Dehelvi or others Inidans stupid fabricated Maulvis have been condemned by the shias Allamas several times. They all were NUSAIRI and unfortunately we always imply NUSAIRI ISM on shias. Shia Allamas were sleeping before but now they have been activated against them. Plz click the link in the bottom.

• If Salman Rushdi or some other (who were originally sunni) writes against Quran or Prophet (S.A.W) then it doesn’t means they are representing Sunni Islam. The important thing is to find out proper channels for investigation.

• I agree that shia doesn’t have the same image about first three caliphs and Hazrat Aisha (R.A.) as sunni have, but it doesn’t effect their Islam. In all the sects of Islam no one says believe on the SAHABA (R.A.) is the necessary condition to be a Muslim.

• Except Allah, prophets and Quran, we have a right to criticise anyone in this world including sahaba (R.A) coz they are human like us and can make mistake but misbehave with them is not permissible.

• Shia criticise sahaba (R.A) but they do not misbehave it is prohibited in shias, there is a group called NUSAIRI they only misbehave with them.

• Why Shia criticise Shaba and Hazrat Aisha (R.A) this is a very long debate but just want to point out few things.

1. Hazrat Aisha made a war (JAMAL) against Ali (who was the 4rth caliph at that time) and tried to weaken the Islamic government and also responsible for the killing of the thousands of Muslims in this war. Same as Hazrat Mauvia (R.A) did with Hazrat Ali (K.A.W) in Seffene war.

2. Several others and Maulana Maudodi (former leader of Jamat Islami Pakistan) criticised this act of Hazrat Aisha (R.A) andHazrat Mauvia and also first three caliphs (R.A) in favour of Hazrat Ali (K.A.W). (Plz read his book khilafat u Malukiat).

3. You are trying to abuse the words from KASHAF-UL-ASRAR. Khomeni didn’t write that Sahaba tried to do Tehreef. He said some of the SAHABA (who were not actually Sahaba) tried to do wrong interpretation plz read his student book “SUKHAN” written by Murtaza Mutheri (published by sazman Tablegat Islami Karachi) in which he proved that sahaba (R.A.) saved Quran from tehreef by memorizing it. Khomeini criticised some of the Sahaba but as Maudodi did.

There are several things more to say but can’t write everything. I hope you will think with peace of mind now. You have to make sure that what the truth is. It could be you who is concealing the truth by writing all these things? In last I want to mention that I don’t have any ineterest in Khomeni by beleif.
Wassalam

And please go to youtube (Shias abusing Khalifas and Hazrat Ayesha). I request you that not to mention me that these Shias are Nusairi. Are all the Shias in India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc are Nusairi? No, never no.

All the books from which excerpts have been reproduced in this book are available with me as well as on the market. But if readers find some spelling or other errors in the translation they should inform me so that corrections may be made in future editions.

I think I owe it to my readers to first state my credentials. By Al-Laah’s grace (Al Hamdu Lil Laah), it is my pride and privilege to be a right-guided and steadfast Musalmaan: Muhammadi, Sunni, Hanafi, Maa Tureedi. I also am a believer in all the well-known and extant spiritual orders established by the great Soofi saints of Islam (Auliya’ Al-Laah) (May Al-Laah be pleased with them), and owe allegiance to four of such renowned orders, namely, Naqsh-bandiyah, Qandiriyah, Chishtiyah and Suhrwardiyah. I should also state why I have undertaken to write this tract. It is simply this. During the course of my recent tour of African countries for the purpose of the propagation of the Faith, I found to my horror that many Muslim youths had come under the spell of Khomeini, erstwhile leader of the revolution in Iran. It had occurred simply because although the strident propaganda literature about the legendary exploits of the Iranian leader incessantly poured out- by the Iranian Government had reached the ears of these Muslim youths, but they had remained woefully ignorant about the beliefs and postulates held by the leaders of Shiite thought. I, therefore, felt that it was incumbent on me to expose the Shiite jurists and scholars, including Khomeini, through their own writings, so that Muslim youths become informed of the truth, and are thus able to remain steadfast to the tenets of the Sunni faith.

Now, let us see what that great savant of Islaam, Hazrat Mahboob-e-Subhaani, Saiyyidina Shaikh Abdul Qaadir Jeelaani, better known as Hazrat Ghaus-i-A’zam (May Al-Laah be pleased with him)’ has written about the Shiites in his book Ghunyatut Taalibeen.

On page 170 of the book, he says: “The Shiite faith is much akin to the Jewish faith. According to Allamah Sha’bi, the “love” borne by the Raafzis (Shiites) is like the love borne by the Jews. The Jews hold that no man, unless he is from the House of David, is fit to be an Imaam. The Shiites reject the claim to Imaamat of any man who is not from the

House of Ali Ibne Abi Taalib. The Jews are of the view that until Dajjaal appears and until Hazrat ‘Isaa (May peace and blessings be upon him) does not—delayed so long for one reason or another—descend from the heaven, it is wholly wrong to wage a holy war (Jihaad). Similarly, the Raafizis (Shiites) hold that unless Imaam Mahdi appears and unless the heaven testifies to his Imaamat, it is not permitted to unleash a war for the sake of Al-Laah. The Jews delay their Maghrib prayers (Namaaz) until the stars join together. Similarly, the Shiites delay their Maghrib prayers. The Jews say their prayers while removed from the Qiblah and a bit tilted from it. The Shiites do the same. The Jews move to and fro while saying their prayers. The Raafizis (Shiites) do likewise. While praying, the Jews let their outer garments touch the ground. The Shiites do likewise. The Jews deem the killing of every Musalmaan to be permitted to them. The Shiites hold the same view. The Jews do not attach any importance to the provision of Id-dat (waiting period) for divorced women. The Raafizis also are like them in this matter. The Jews do not think that any harm attaches to pronouncing talaaq (divorce) thrice. The Shiites also believe likewise. The Jews tampered with the Thauraat. The Shiites tampered with the Qur’aan. They say that changes and distortions had already been made in the Qur’aan and alterations had been affected in the arrangement of its verses. They further say that the order in which the Qur’aan was revealed has not been retained and the way it is now recited is not proved by a reference to the Prophet (May Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him). The Shiites, therefore, maintain that additions and subtractions have been made in the Qur’aan. The Jews have an enmity with Hazrat Jibra’eel (May peace be upon him), and they say that he is an enemy to them from amongst the angels. Similarly, one faction of the Shiites says that Jibra’eel grossly erred in delivering (Wah’y) Al-Laah’s Message to Hazrat Muhammad (May Al-Laah’s peace and blessing be upon him) instead of to Hazrat Ali for whom, according to them, it was in fact meant. The Shiites are liars. May they perish till Doomsday!”

One of the giants among the scholars of the sub-continent, Shah Abdul Azeez Muhaddis Dehlvi (May Al-Laah have mercy on him), has written a remarkable book in denunciation of the obnoxious beliefs of the Shiites. It is called Tuhfah Isnaa Ashariyah and is available throughout the Arab and the non-Arab world in all four languages, Arabic, Persian, Urdu and English. Given below are some extracts from the book, exposing some of the most contemptible beliefs of the Shiites, so that Muslim youths are able to know by themselves, instead of asking any Mufti (An expounder of muslim law) whether persons holding such beliefs could be called Musalmaan.

Beliefs of the Shiites and the Raafzis
(Heretics):

* The Qur’aan extant today is not correct because the companions of the holy Prophet
(May Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him)
have tampered with it.

* The “Gharaabiyah” faction of the Shiites maintains that Jibreel (May peace be upon him) grossly erred in delivering (Wah’y) Al-Laah’s Message. Originally intended for Hazrat Ali, it was wrongly delivered to Hazrat Muhammad (May Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him).

* Three of the Caliphs, i.e. Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq, Hazrat ‘Umar Farooq and Hazrat ‘Usmaan Ghani (May Al-Laah be pleased with them) were definitely not Mu’min and, as such, were also not fit to be Ameers and Caliphs.

* Whosoever bears love for Hazrat Ali Ibne Abi Taalib (May Al-Laah be pleased with him) will be blessed with Jannat (Paradise), be he a Mushrik (polytheist) or a Jew or a Christian. On the other hand, whosoever bears love for the companions (Sahaabah) (May Al-Laah be pleased with them) of the Prophet of Al-Laah (May Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him) will go to Hell, howsoever good and righteous he may be and howsoever much he may be in love with the House of the Prophet (Ahl-e-Baiet, May Al-Laah be pleased with them.)

* Cursing Hazrat Abu ‘Bakr Siddeeq and Hazrat ‘Umar Farooq brings as much good reward (from Al-Laah) as reciting Bismil-Laah and the food that is eaten after cursing these two personages is 70 times more blessed.

* Al-Laah sent all His Prophets and Messengers to the world merely to confirm Hazrat Ali’s Vilaayat (sainthood). Had there been no Hazrat Ali, Prophets would not have been created.

* Al-Laah was so pleased at the assassination of Hazrat Umar Farooq that He forbade the Kiraaman Kaatibeen
(angels appointed by Al-Laah to write down good and bad acts of every person born into the world)
from noting down the sins of people for three days.

* Pretending to be a Sunni and saying prayer’s behind a Sunni is as great a virtue as saying prayers behind a Prophet. This is meant to show that Taqiyyah (deception) by itself is a great virtue. (May Al-Laah protect us from such beliefs!)

It should be noted that at present there are Shiites who protest their ignorance about the above-mentioned blasphemous beliefs, just as some Deobandi Wahaabi*
————————————————————————————————————
* For details of the blasphemous and altogether abominable ideas held by the Deobandi Wahaabi propagandists readers may see my tract, “Deoband to Bareilly: (The Truth)”.
——————————————————————————————————–
propagandists deny knowledge of the blasphemous and altogether abominable ideas mentioned in their books by their predecessors.

Let us take heed that those who merely say that they have no such knowledge are not to be deemed separate and different from those who hold such blasphemous and wrong beliefs and propagate them unless they declare on oath that they do not subscribe to these views and also that they consider those who hold such views to be infidels, wicked and strayed.

Let him who says that it is not right to altogether condemn a person for doing one bad deed reflect on the fate of Shaitaan, to whom all his prayers for millions of years, his beliefs in the Oneness of Al-Laah (Tauheed) and all his knowledge was of no avail because of a single misdeed he committed. It should be clearly understood that to be a Mu’min and a Muslim, it is absolutely essential to fully subscribe to all the essentials of the Faith, and denying any one of these is enough to condemn a man as an infidel.

Readers ought to realise that there is absolutely no room for any doubt about the correctness and the truth of the Holy Qur’aan. It is a miracle acknowledged to be so by the whole world. But let us now consider the view the Shiites hold about the Qur’aan. On page 228, volume one, of the renowned book of the Shiites, Usool-e-Kaafi, Kitaabul Hujjah, (published by Daar-ul-Kutub Al-lslaamiyah, Tehran), it is stated thus: “It is narrated from Jaabir that he heard it from Aba Ja’far Imaam Muhammad Baaqir, (May Al-Laah be pleased with him) that none amongst mankind could claim to have gathered the whole of the Qur’aan as it had descended. He who makes such a claim is a liar. No one gathered it in the manner it was sent down, and no one memorised it thus, except Ali Ibne Abi Taalib (may Al-Laah be pleased with him) and the Imaams who came after him”. May Al-Laah protect us from such vile thoughts!.

On page 633 of volume 2 of the same book, it is stated “that a man recited the Qur’aan in the presence of Abu Abdul Laah (Imaam Ja’far Saadiq, may Al-Laah be pleased with him) during which some words were recited in a manner which was not according to how people used to generally recite them. Upon this, Abu Abdul Laah (May peace on him) said: “Do not recite like this but recite it as people have been reciting it till Imaam Mahdi makes his appearance. The Qur’aan, as it was originally sent down, will be recited only when Imaam Mahdi appears on the eve of Doomsday, and then the Qur’aan scribed by Hazrat Ali will be brought out”. Al-Laah protect us form such evil thoughts!

Renowned Shiite scholar of the sixth century A.H., Abu Mansoor Tabrasi, on page 254 of volume one of his book, Al-lhtijaaj Lit-Tabrasi, published by Al Matba’ Sa’eed Mashhad-al-Muqaddasah, Iran’ and the 11th century A.H. Shiite researcher, Mulla Mohsin Kaashaani, on page 32 of volume one of his book, Tafseer As-Saavee, published in Iran, have denied in clear terms the veracity and the truth of the Qur’aan.

Despite denying the veracity and the truth of the Qur’aan, Shiite scholars have yet written commentaries of the Qur’aan. Renowned Shiite commentator of the Qur’aan, Ali Bin Ibraaheem Al-Qumi, on page 35, volume one, of his commentary, Tafseer Qumi (published by Mu’as-sisah Daar-ul-Kitaab Lit-Taba’ati wan-Nashar), explaining the Qur’aanic verse, “Of course, Al-Laah does not refrain form giving the likeness of even the smallest of things, be it a gnat in this verse or any thing bigger than this”, says that “gnat in this verse refers to Hazrat Ali

and the words ‘bigger than this’ refer to ” Dear readers! I dare not,

even in translation, name the most scared being which the Shiite scholar
has done in Arabic with abandon. Al-Laah protect me from committing
such a profanity!

Readers will have no realisation of the deep anguish I have been going through while reproducing such abominations. But it is a fact that whereas his fatwa (religious verdict) of death against Shaitaan Rushdie has earned Khomeini all-round applause and approbation, people are generally not aware that Khomeini himself is guilty of a similar blasphemy. As a humble servant of Ahle Sunnat I deem slandering against anybody to be a major sin. Readers would have, therefore, noticed that I have all along this tract been quoting from the writings of Shiite scholars along with the names of the presses from which they had been published and with the fullest sense of responsibility. The idea behind reproducing them is merely to make our simple but enthusiastic youths keep away from being influenced by the apparent charms of Khomeini’s so-called feats in the light of knowledge gained by them regarding this wicked faith (Shiism) and its followers.

On page 671 of the famous book of the Shiites, Usool-e-Kaafi, published from Lucknow, an assertion is made that Abu Abdul Laah (Imaam Ja’far) reportedly held that “the Qur’aan brought to Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Jibra’eel (peace be upon him) contained 17,000 verses”. Readers know that the Holy Qur’aan contains only 6,666 verses, while the Shiites believe that 10,344 verses have been expunged. This means that, according to the Shiites, Al-Laah failed to keep His promise He himself made in the Book of preserving the Qur’aan. How ridiculous! (May Al-Laah forbid it!).

Several renowned Shiite scholars have repeatedly made the assertion that the extant version of the Qur’aan is not the original one, and the blame for saying so has been clearly pinned down on venerated Imaama of the House of Muhammad (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him).

All Muslims know it full well that mut’ah (temporary marriage) is forbidden. But a reliable Shiite scholar, Mulla Fathul Laah Kaashaani, on page 493 of his book, Manhaj-us-Saadiqeen, volume 2, published by Intishaaraute llmiyah Islaamiyah, Baazaar Shirazi Junb Nouroz Khan, writes the following and alludes it to the Holy Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessing be upon him) himself. Mulla Kaashaani asserts: “He who contracts mut’ah once gets to the status of Imaam Husain (May Al-Laah be pleased with him); he who contracts it twice gets to the status of Imaam Hasan (may Al-Laah be pleased with him); he who contracts it thrice gets to the status of Hazrat Ali (may Al-Laah be pleased with him); and he who contracts it four times gets to my status (that is to say, the status of the Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessing be upon him) himself)”. Readers should realise how wicked would be the faith according to which contracting a forbidden act like mut’ah four times raises the person so doing to the status of the Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him). May Al-Laah protect us from this wicked faith and its evils!

Shiite Shaikhs, Toosi and Nu’maani, narrate the following from the 8th Imaam, Hazrat Raza (may Al-Laah be pleased with him): “The sign of the appearance of Imaam Mahdi will be that he will be seen in the nude in front of the sun, and a crier will announce that the Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen has come again”. And Mulla Baqir Majlisi, on page 347 of volume 2 of the book Haq-qul-Yaqeen, published by Intishaaraate llmiyah lslaamiyah, asserts thus: “The first to owe allegiance to the (naked) Mahdi will be Muhammad (May Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him)”. According to the same book, “When our Imaam Mahdi will reappear he will raise up Aayishah (May Al-Laah be pleased with her) and take revenge on her on behalf of Hazrat Faatimah (May Al-Laah be pleased with her)”. The same Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes: “Thus the two accursed men, (meaning, Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq and Hazrat Umar Faarooq, may Al-Laah be pleased with them), and the two accursed women meaning, wives of the holy Prophet, Saiyyidah Aayishah Siddeeqah and Saiyyidah Hafsah (may Al-Laah be pleased with them), conspired among themselves to poison the holy Prophet (May Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him)”—page 610 of volume 2 of the book, Hayaat-ul-Quloob, published by Intisharaate Jaawedaan. This assertion clearly means that Al-Laah failed in His promise of protecting the holy Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings he upon him) from the people.

Those influenced by Khomeini himself might say that all this was not written by Khomeini himself. I should ask such of them to read what Khomeini himself has written on page 121 of the book, Kashf-ul-Asraar, published by lntisharaate Mustafavi. Khomeini exhorts his co-religionists thus: “Continue reading the Persian books written by Mulla Baqir Majlisi for the Persian speaking people so that you do not fall into the mischief of some kind of foolishness”. I put it to my readers whether supporting blasphemy does not itself constitute blasphemy! Also to be noted is this pronouncement by Khomeini: “The belief that the status of our Imaams is such that it is not achievable by any of the angels who may be near to Al-Laah, or any Prophet (sent by Al-Laah), is one of the fundamentals of our Shiite faith”, page 58 of Vilaayat-e-Faqeeh, published by Intisharaate Aazaadi, Qum, Seh Rah Mozah.

Dear readers! We of the Ahle Sunnat Wa Jama’at believe, in the light of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, that all the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the holy Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him) are true and steadfast Mu’min, are definitely entitled to Jannat (Paradise) and are exalted in ranks in the sight of Al-Laah. Al-Laah has Himself testified in the Qur’aan to the companions of the holy Prophet (May Al-Laah’s peace and blessing be upon him) being Mu’min and entitled to Jannat. Everybody is aware that Islaamic tenets are based on the news given in the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth. Any news given by an Imaam (religious guide) or a Mujtahid (A supervisor of religious matters) or a Mufti (An expounder of muslim law) should be rejected if it is opposed to the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth.
The greatest Muhad-dis of the Shiites, Mulla Muhammad Bin Ya’qoob Koleini, in volume 8 of his book, Ar-Raudah Minal Kaafi, published in Tehran, (page 245), quoting Imaam Muhammad Baaqir (may Al-Laah be pleased with him), writes: “After the demise of the Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him), all his companions had become apostates, excepting Miqdaad Bin Aswad, Abu Zar Ghifaari and Salmaan Faarasi (may Al-Laah have mercy on them)”. On the next page (246) of the same book, he states: “The Shaikhain (Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq and Hazrat Umar Faarooq, may Al-Laah be pleased with them) departed from this world without seeking forgiveness and without repenting for what they had done to the Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen Hazrat Ali (may peace on him). Thus may Al-Laah and the angels and the people curse the two!” We of the Ahle Sunnat Wa Jama’at condemn all such beliefs.

Mulla Baqir Majlisi, in his book Haq-qul-Yaqeen, (page 342), in his usual abusive and filthy style, “likens Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq and Hazrat Umar Faarooq to Fir’aun and Haamaan” (Al-Laah forbid). On page 259 of the same book Mulla Baqir has this to say about Hazrat Umar (may Al-Laah be pleased with him): “It is not necessary to repeat what has already been written in larger books about the meanness of the family background and about his being born outside of wedlock”. The same Mulla Baqir, writing on page 522 of the same book, makes bold to quote Imaam Zainul Aabideen (may Al-Laah be pleased with them) as having said, “on being questioned about the affairs of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar (may Al-Laah be pleased with them) that both Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar (may Al-Laah be pleased with him) were infidels, and he who bears love to these two is also an infidel” (Al-Laah forbid). And yet it is this Mulla Baqir whom Khomeini exhorts his followers to keep drawing inspiration from! Can Khomeini, even after this; be called a “leader and guide?”

Besides this, the greatest Muhad-dis of the Shiites, Muhammad Bin Ya’qoob Koleini, on page 285 of his book, Ar-Raudah Kaafi, volume 8 (published by Daarul Kutub Al-lslaamiyah, Tehran) has used the name of Imaam Muhammad Baaqir (may Al-Laah be pleased with him) for the assertion that “all except our Shiites are bastards”. It is mentioned in Haq-qul-Yaqeen, volume 2, page 527, that, “on appearing, Imaam Mahdi will first kill all Sunni ulama before killing all other infidels”. And Majma-ul-Bayaan also carries the same Hadeeth with its source pegged on to the Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him) himself. (Al-Laah forbids!).

– On page 521 of Haq-qul-Yaqeen, volume 2, such people who approve of the Imaamat and Khilaafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq, Hazrat Umar Faarooq (may Al-Laah be pleased with them) and who consider these two to precede Hazrat Ali (may Al-Laah be pleased with him`), have been called “Naasibi”. And Mulla Baqir Majlisi, in his writings, says: “A ‘Naasibi’ is worse than a bastard. It is true that Almighty Al-Laah has not created a worse creature than a dog, but in the sight of Al-Laah a Naasibi is more mean than a dog”.
(Haq-qul-Yaqeen, volume 2, page 516).

Those who can agree to be worse than bastards and dogs, as claimed by Mulla Baqir Majlisi, who has been praised by Khomeini, may accept Khomeini as “leader and guide”. But thanks to Al-Laah, we of the Ahle Sunnat Wa Jama’at do no subscribe to such heathenistic beliefs and postulates.

Apart from Mulla Baqir Majlisi, let us see Khomeini’s own perverse thinking about Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq and Hazrat Umar Faarooq (may Al-Laah be pleased with them). He writes: “It was impossible for those people (Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar, may Al-Laah be pleased with them), who had for many years attached themselves to the Messenger (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him) and had formed themselves into a group in the hope of one day grabbing power, to resist doing what they did just for the sake of carrying out the commands of the Qur’aan. They had to seize power and run their governments anyhow, somehow”, (page l 14, Kashful Asraar.)

On the same page of this very book, he further says: “They Abu Bakr and Umar (may Al-Laah be pleased with them) had nothing to do with Islaam and Qur’aan, except to seize worldly power, and had been using the Qur’aan as a smokescreen to fulfil their evil intentions” At the end of this very book, Khomeini has given these headlines to various chapters: “Abu Bakr’s opposition to the text of the Qur’aan; Umar’s opposition to Al-Laah’s Qur’aan”. (Kashful Asraar. pages 114 and 117). On page 120 of this very book, Khomeini has headlined one of his chapters thus: “A glance at the babblers (Ahle Sunnat Wa Jama’at)”. While ranting against Hazrat Usmaan (may Al-Laah be pleased with him), Khomeini could not hold his pen even regarding Al-Laah. He says: “We worship that Khuda (Al-Laah) and recognise only Him as Khuda (Al-Laah) whose acts are based on mature wisdom and who does not do anything against the dictates of wisdom. Nor do we recognise such Khuda (Al-Laah) who having built the edifice of justice and piety on the exalted foundation of devotion to Khuda (Al-Laah), Himself paves the way for its destruction and ruin, and hands over leadership and governance to such oppressors and scoundrels as Yazeed, Mu’aa Wiyah and Usmaan”. (Kashful Asraar, page 107).

Readers would have noticed that Khomeini has used the words “oppressors and scoundrels” not only for Yazeed but also for the Prophet’s companion, Ameer Mu’aa Wiyah and Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen Saiyyidina Usmaan Ghani (may Al-Laah be pleased with him), and that Khomeini got so excited in the process that he even refused to acknowledge Al-Laah and to worship Him because Al-Laah Himself had bestowed leadership and governance upon Hazrat Usmaan (may Al-Laah be pleased with him). The insolent language, which Khomeini has used about Al-Laah, reminds one of the beliefs held by the Magians (Fire-worshippers) of ancient Iran that there are two separate Gods, one of good and the other of evil. May the merciful Al-Laah protect from such filthy beliefs and such filthy people!

I still have with me a small pamphlet in which Khomeini has declared: “I will fulfil the mission which the holy Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him) failed to fulfil”. This pamphlet had been brought to the notice of members of the Federal Majlis-e-Shoora (Pakistan Parliament) at one of its sessions, and the feelings of the faithful throughout Pakistan had been inflamed by it, and I am sure a glance at other writings of Khomeini would reveal many other blasphemies uttered by him. Knowledge of the contents of this small pamphlet would convince the faithful that Khomeini and his Shiite faith have nothing to do with the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.

Thanks be to Al-Laah that He has raised us among the followers of His beloved and last Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him) and has allowed us to be among the right-guided Ahle Sunnat Wa Jama’at.

It is our faith that love of the holy Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him) and the great personages of his blessed family are the assets of the faith and the means to our redemption.
Having full faith in the news given by the Qur’aan and Sunnah we bear witness that the Prophet’s caliphs Saiyyidina Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq, Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen Saiyyidina Hazrat Umar Faarooq, Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen Saiyyidina Hazrat Usmaan Ghani, Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen Saiyyidina Hazrat Ali Murtaza and all the companions of the holy Prophet, and all the revered spouses of the holy Prophet, and all the members of the Prophet’s Household (May Al-Laah be pleased with them) are the most venerated among the Muslim Ummah.

We also believe in their greatness and truthfulness, in their sense of justice and honesty, in their faith and piety, in their devotion and prayers, in their knowledge and grace and in their nobility and Imaamat.

All these are Al-Laah’s chosen and blessed bondsmen and bearing love to all of them is of the essence of the faith. And to he disrespectful and insolent to any one of them is most hurtful to us and is bound to bring upon us the wrath of Al-Laah and the displeasure of His Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him).

It is our faith that the Qur’aan, from its sending-down to this day’ is preserved in the original form and there is no possibility of any alterations or changes in it, for Al-Laah has made it incumbent upon Himself to preserve the Qur’aan. The very thought that the Qur’aan has been altered, or can be altered, is a wholly reprehensible idea.

We are convinced that it is an act of blasphemy to doubt the veracity and truthfulness of even one word of the Qur’aan.

We hold that any sect which belies the Qur’aan, belies the traditions of the holy Prophet, or is insolent towards the holy Prophet, the spouses of the Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him), the companions of the Prophet, the members of the Prophet’s Household, and the saints (may Al-Laah be pleased with them) ceases to belong to the Faith. We believe that all others are deviationists, except the right guided Ahle Sunnat Wa Jama’at.
May Al-Laah enable us to be steadfast to the creed of the Ahle Sunnat Wa Jama’at and may we meet with death in this state. Aameen! May Al-Laah so ordain, for the sake of the holy Prophet (may Al-Laah’s peace and blessings be upon him), his companions, and the blessed ones who followed in their footsteps! Aameen.

“The Islamic and non-Islamic powers of the world will not admit our power till such time that we establish our hold over Makkah and Madinah because these are the centers and citadels of Islam. Hence our domination over these places Is an essential requirement … when as a conqueror I will enter Makkah and Madinah, the first thing to be done at that time by me would be to dig out two idols (Abu Bakr and Umar) lying by the side of the Prophet’s grave.”

What Maudoodi wrote is not Islamic. Maudoodi was founder of Maudoodiat (Maudoodiism).

My Dear,

The Shias never show their real face. I lived in Karachi, Rawalpindi and Lahore during united Pakistan time and had contacts with Shias. The Shias call all the Sunnis as Nasibi. Do you know the meaning of Nasibi? Nasibi are those who hate Hazrat Ali.

Oh Bhai! kisi per Jhotay Ilzamat kyun lagatay ho. I have already told you that shia do not accept all those things which you are trying to impose on them. Rewriting again and again just wasting of the time . I have confirmed by myself, it’s not true. There are several thousands books have been written against shia but they all based on personal observations or based on those books which have been condemned by shia Ulmas. Why do you look at Shia or Nusairi to make the decision? Meet the right Ulmas and then ask them what is right or what is wrong. It is the same situation that being happened with the Muslims nowadays. Non-Muslims say that Islam is the bad religion coz they look at Muslims. You blame before that Shia believe, Ali is the God. I mentioned you above that it’s not true, Ali is not the God in Shias. I again rewrite all the things and plz do not accused again shias on these issues.

SHIA BELEIFES

• Shia believes that, there is no God except Allah and He is the only God, no one shares His powers.

• Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W) is the last prophet of the Allah and superior in all the human being including Ali (R.A).

• Quran is the book of Allah and it is free from any kind of TEHREEF. It is not possible to make any change in Quran even for one word up to the end of this world.

• Shia believes on all the prophets and angels and the day of judgement same like Sunnis.

• They believe all the COMPANIONS (R.A) of Prophet (S.A.W) are very great people and sacrificed for Islam, but they criticise some of them for e.g, Hazrat Abubaker, Hazrat Umer, Hazrat Uthman, Hazrat Maauvia (R.A) etc. but they stop to misbehave with them same as with Hazrat Aisha (R.A).Plz watch the following video. SHIA DO NOT ABUSE SAHABA (R.A)

• They criticize some of the Sahaba coz of the several reasons some of them I described above and some of them described by maulana Ishaq (a sunni scholar) in the videos given in bottom.

• They believe that there are five prayers in Islam and they have to be done according to their timings but Asr can be done quick after Zuhur and Isha quick after the Maghrib (choice) according to the Ahadees. (click on the video link bottom)

I already told you Usool kafi or any book of Ahadeeth in shias are not considered free of mistakes, shia Mujhtahidin put too much efforts to find out right Hadees from these books and they don’t accept any hadees if it goes against Quran so plz do not quote any hadees from these books. After that I also request you to not to rewrite all these things. These above are all the understood facts and more than 100% confirm and according to them Shia are Muslims like Sunnis.

Mutta and these kinds of debate are secondary issues and everything has logic as described by Shia Ulmas several times, but we don’t want to listen them. No one do the Mutta in current time but they believe the permissibility of Mutah coz it is proved from Quran (SURAH NISA AYAT 24) and several AHLESUNNAT Ahadees. Plz click following link for details.

Khomeini never misbehaved with any companion of prophet (S.A.W), you are giving the wrong impressions of the words. I agree he criticised few sahaba (R.A) same as Sunni scholars criticize, criticism and misbehave are two different things. Don’t forget Khomeini was the person who killed corrupt Beaurocrates and Politicians, coz of him naked women wearing Islamic dress; people are worshipping Allah in Iran. He kicked away America and Israel from Iran who are the actual enemies of Islam.

I wrote above that Maulana Maudodi (former leader of jamat islami and a sunni scholar) criticise sahaba karam and Hazrat Aisha (R.A) but you don’t accept coz it is not in your favour. I put the following video links of Maulana Ishaq who is the sunii scholar and also criticized Sahaba plz must watch them and put the fatwa of Kufur on Maulana Ishaq and Maulana Maudodi (according to your theory).

I gave you everything on spot. After watching all these videos I m sure you will have the soft heart for Shias. I want to remind you that shia do not say Sunnis are bad and helping sunnis in (Gazza and Palestine).

Please decrease your hate and do efforts for unity of Muslims.
Waassalam

Mr. Maudoodi was not Sunni. Moulana Ishaq is Ahle Hadees. Both and there followers were and are not from the four school of thoughts. Maudoodiat and Ahle Hadeesiat are sponsored by the Saudis. This is a nacked truth.

Once again there is one point: Why abuse the Shias Sahaba Karam and Hazrat Aisha? Your answer will be: these are not Shias but Nusairis.

Then the Shias in Iran; Pakistan, Insia, Iraq, etc, are Nusairis because they abuse such Islamic personalities. See the youtube (abusing Khilafa).

Pakistans issues between Sunnis and Shias is our internal matter, and before this matter one matter that we all are agreed and united upon is the departure of all bengladeshis from Pakistans and the recalling of the rightful Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh.

The Muslims do need to look within for their problem lies within. What they have been doing for years now, is look everywhere except the origins of ploys and politics of terrorism that have for 1400 years gripped the value system of Islam, a faith they claim to love, live by and live for. So long they persist in denying the facts of history they can never prevent or help repeat the errors and blunders of their history while they keep believing the very corruptions resulting from these errors to be the crux of their faith and politics. It will only be well for Muslims and others now to go beyond their tendency to focus on terrorism as a particular nation, country, bloc, or group of despicable peculiar people. It is imperative that we consider focusing on the situations that determined terror in order, to recognise, identify and locate – the common forces of terrorism, the fertile fields of terrorism, the swindlers of faith, the spin-doctors of fake spirituality – who seduce normal minds into becoming most cruel perpetrators of evil.

Brother why do you always think on the basis of sects, please think as a Muslim any individual with Kalama-e-shadat is a Muslim, Maulana Maudodi and Maulanan Ishaq said every thing on the basis of Quran and SAHA-SATTAH.

As far as I know not in Iran, (don’t know about Iraq) but in Pakistan there are some paid speaker or Zakireen (not Allamas) definitely use abusive words for Ashab, several of them have been declared Nusairis by shia Ulmas. This trend is slightly higher in interior Punjab coz of uneducation, some people come to listen them just for fun, some come coz of the lack of knowledge, in Karachi most recently a zakir is beaten by shia boys coz he was trying to abuse companions. Abusing the Ashab-e- Rasool (S.A.W) is a pre-plan scheme to split the Muslims.

Unfortunately, we become a part of this anti-Islam scheme by initiating these sorts of debates. If we are qualified and lover of prophet (S.A.W), then we should efforts to develop the environment for Muslim unity.

I wish, but if we go through your comments then we can know better that how much the poision you have in your mind about shia and other sects of Islam. When I proved that you are wrong then you jumped on the language, you want to split the Pakistani Muslims on the basis of sects and languages. I respect you as my muslim brother, but we all know that in 1971 Bangalis were involved in the killing of Pakistani soldiers and several others civilians including women.

Please leave us and if you are really faithful with Islam then I suggest you to go Israel and start Tableegh there.

Voice of Human Justice, you are a typical dishonest Paki Shaytan (satan). You lack humanity but you still call yourself “Voice of Human Justice”. You claim to be a Muslim but you are probably a low caste Hindu convert from Punjab. Shame on you that still have not learnt that Islam is about truth and justice for all mankind.

Your mother tongue is not Urdu, a language of the Ganges plain, but a folk tongue called Punjabi! You are Ahmadi, Shia, Sunni or Hindu-influenced mystical sects with pirs.

Pakistan was founded by the Shia Muslims, many of them low caste Hindu converts from Gujarat. Jinnah was a Ismaili Shia.

In Punjab, before partition of India, most of the landlords were Sikh, Hindu and Shia Muslim, the most of poverty-stricken peasants were Sunni Punjabis who lived as virtual slaves. Incredibly, the leader of the Punjabi Sunni Muslims was a Ahmadi (Quaidani) from Sialkot Muhammad Zafarullah Khan!

West Pakistan went on to become Pakistan in 1971 after the terrible crimes against humanity by Punjabi Muslim Pakistan Army in Bangladesh. The Pakistani Army men in the name of ISLAM. Quran, Allah and Mohammed killed over a million people, raped 200, 000 boys, girls and women. Why? Punjabi Muslims, who had led a nice life at the expense of Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baluchis and especially Bengali people were afraid that after Bengali-led Awami League won power running Pakistan would lose the chance to cheat the other nationalities.

Because the Saudis were insisting that Bengali forgive crimes of the Punjabi Pakistan Army of rapists and killers in the name of Islamic Unity, Bengalis bit their lips tightly. For that Punjabis, like Kafirs, pretend they were not rapists and killers in the name of Allah and Islam.

By the way many of Punjabi Muslims who killed and raped in 1971 were also involved in the mass killing, rape and abduction of Sikh and Hindu Punjabis in 1947. So they had very good training. This is now being investigated by academics.

You will find Muslims in Egypt, Algeria, Bosnia, Iran, Palestine, Syria, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq feel angry that Pakistani Punjabi Army was never tried Islamically for their horrible crimes in 1971, against a Muslim nation, IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.

Today, Shia-founded Pakistan is still run like a colony by uncultured Punjabi peasants. The Pashtuns, the Baloch nation, the Sindis are but colonies to the Punjabi Army.

The Sindhis, Baloch and Pathans have living languages and cultures. They are all nations under occupation. None of the nations have any problem have any problem as Sunni or Shia Muslim.

On the other hand, the Punjabis have no written langauge apart from Sikh dominated Gurumukhi. They are landlocked and in future at the mercy of Sikhs and Hindis. Muslim Punjabis will starve and live the life of slavery as before partition under Sikh Raj.

One last fact: The “Muslim” Punjabi element has a bloody history between various castes (yes, they still follow the Hindu caste system), Ahmadi, Shia and Sunni. They can keep the cover as long as Pakistan (West Pakistan until 1971) remains.

its ppl like u who divide the country apart, i m with human justice, sunni or shia which ever1 u r we r all 1, and infront of Allah if u gona say tht punjabi’s r worse then us put them in hell more i dont noe whts gona happen with u
i m a muslim i dont even rite if i m sunni or shia, y cuz Islam says dont divide, who ever says the kalma is a muslim an tht is it, then Allah decides how much of faith does he really have
i even go an pray behind other imams the way they pray cuz i m no God 2 judge who is rite an who is wrong

plz dont divide the country b 1 guys, strong if we united can b strong enough 2 do everythin

You have excatly stated the belief of 12rs Shias,this is what thier believe is.

@Voice of Human Justice,
Infact you are doing Taqqiya..You know that it is part of yours believe but still lying…Can i ask why????????

About Molana Madoadi you are misquoting him as per your relegion,he hasnt critized Mother of the believers or Mauwyia[r.a] yes Ali[r.a] was on right and Mauwyia Ijthad was wroung this is what he stated, not only that but Madodi stated that Mauwyia would get single reward cause his Ijtahad was wround so plz dont misqoute him,about Molana Ishaq you have quoted and have give his speech video i can tell one thing that the books which he quoted if you go to it isnad you will find them extremely weak or broken or one of the narrator is SHIA,how this happened that shia in every part of history ditched Muslims and tried to stab whenever they get a chance Islam,how they did it you know??????by the way of TAQQIYAA,as one of Imam 8th Imam[Raza,r.a] said that in matter of fact how cliam to be our shia or apostated [Rajal Kash] it is your own book,
About the athunticty of KAFI i would say that is equalent to Muslim Bukhari,go and readyhttp://www.ahlelbayt.com
So plz dont say that you dont believe it is to not 100 % authentic,it was named Kafi cause the 12th imam has said according to yours believe to be Kafi[enough] for our Shias…….having clearified by 12th imam and by consensus of 12rs Jurists.
@Mansoor,
I agree with you,if anybody with a name of ali,hasan,hussian the 12rs shia will claim that he is 12rs imami shia..lololololol
Non senceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
one simple question if dont accept hazrat Ayesha Sadiqa[r.a] to be yours mother it means your are not believers cause Allah says in Quran that the wifes are the mother of believers,upto you accept Quran or accept ibne saba[Yahodi] or yours so called Ayatullah……………..

@Voice of Human Justice,
Dont talk about Mansoor Imam,you know what is the reality behind it???dont you?????
Self created Imamate theory appeared when Imam Jaffar sadiq[r.a] declared his son Ismail to be next
Imam,what happened is that Imam ISMAIL[r.a] died in during the life time of Imam Jafar sadik[r.a],having cliamed Imamate to be divine appionment the shias got great DILIMA ,so they have to put blame
on ALLAH BY INVENTING THE CREED OF BHADA[it means Allah doesnt know a thing before it appears to Him][Astaghfarullah]if it was a [Suppose]divine appointment then Jafar Sadiq [r.a] right has gone to Ismial and now it is in the hand of Ismail to declared another Imam not by Imam Jafar[r.a].
Ismailis are 100000% right in this regard to claim Imamate for Imam Ismial[r.a] son Imam Mohammad bin Ismail[r.a].
In interesting move by the Fanatic Baqir Majlissi,he siad in Bahar ul Anwar that Ismial bin Jafar Sadiq was declard Imam by Imam Jafar ul Sadiq[r.a] but Ismial was caught drinking alchole thats is why the Imamate was taken back from him and given to Imam Musa Kazim[r.a].
How sad is that one side Shias cliam to be the lover and followers of Ahlelbayt of Prophet Mohammad[s.a.w] other side they ditch every single Imam of Ahlelbayt,they called Imam Nafsakia[r.a] to dajjal,any son of Imam Hassan[r.a] to be apostate if he claimed Imamte for himself,they dont spare Hazrat Ali[r.a] non fathami sons,they called Imam hassan Askeri[r.a] brother Imam Jafar[r.a] as Jafar KAZAB[liar] cause he said that his brother Imam Hassan Askeri [r.a] died with having any offspring.
Shia ditch Imam Hussian[r.a] at Kerbala,they decieved Imam Zayd bin zianul abiden agaisnt Umayad opperssors,
Thats why Imam Jafar sadid[r.a] has to say that no one bears hatred to us only who cliams to love us that is shia[Rajal Kashi]
Anyone wants any prove what i have stated above i will give them happily from SHIAS OWN SOURCE.

@All.
Why 12rs making a Muslim family a Shia?????????Bhutto family is SUNNI,,ZAB AND BB they were Sunni not Shias,
I can Challange on it if anyone wants to?????????
ZAB Cousin is is JAMAT ISLAMI,Asad ullah Bhutto,he is the amir JI of Sindh,Ubiad ullah Bhutto is in JUI[F] Mohammad Umer Bhutto is with Mumtaz Ali Bhutto[Sindh Uninted front] Mohamamd Anwar Bhutto was with BB now has joined JUI[F],Farooq Ali Bhutto is with Ghunwa Bhutto,Shahid Hussain Bhutto is with PPP,Hassanian Mansoor Bhutto is with PML[Q]

No doubt you are the biggest liar. You are trying to misguide the people, but it is not possible coz this is the time of information technology and every thing is available online. KHILAFAT U MALOOKIAT can be downloaded online from the given below link

The following page number openly written aginst Hazrat Aishah (R.A).
124, 131, 134. Maulana Maudodi wrote that She was responsible of the killing of 10,000 muslims (including great sahaba) in Jamal War and she was 100% wrong against Ali (R.A). I tried to copy and paste here but probaly its not allowed to quote urdu words here.

Maudodi further said against Hazrat Mauvia etc (at page 146) that “we cannot say this is the mistake by Ijtehad” it means Hazrat Mauvia (R.A) was involved in great sin. I request the people plz read at least chapter 4 and 5 and you will know why shia critisize some Sahaba (R.A) and Hazrat Aisha (R.A) and it is important to note that the sunnis are also critisizing so why blame on shias only?

Dont forget Maulana Ishaq is not the Shia scholar so do not misgiude again the people.

Al-Kafi is not authentic book it is understood fact. Several Ahadeed are true and several are wrong, it is not like Sahi Muslim or Bukhari (I did confirm by my own and can provide further evidences).

I m not in Taqqaiyah. Its so shame when someone tries to reveal the truth people like you give the blame of the Taqqaiyah. So you think Maulana, Maudodi, Maulana Ishaq, Maulana Tahirul Qadri etc all are in Taqqaiyah?

I request everyone plz ignore these kind of the people. They want to keep ignite the fire between shia and sunni. One side they become shia and start to say abusive words against Sahaba karam and other side they become sunni to put the fatwa of kufr on shia. They are here just to split muslims. We need muslim unity now much much more than the any time in past. Everyone has a right to practice Islam according to his/her faith.

It is our responsiblity we should stop these ignorent by writing the protesting words against them.

@Voice of Human Justice,
I am woundering,how bold are you?how boldly you lie?as Prophet [s.a.w] said that the annovator,deviant and misguided will always lie and they would do it proudly] as you are doing it now,agian TAQQIYA [Holy hypocracey]
You are big time HYPOCRATE.
As usaul by Misquoting,Misattributions,Mistranslations and Blatant Lies you are trying to make a point which suits you.isnt it???????
Molana Modudi didnt say what you are trying to prove here,Yes he said that the killers of Usman[r.a] was in army of Hazrat Ali[r.a] when the matter was sorted out Between Hazrat ALI[r.a] & Hazrat AYESHA[r.a], the killers of[Usman[r.a] attacked the army of Hazrat Ayesha[r.a] cause of that many muslims including Sahaba[r.a] were killed on the page YOU mentioned.
One thing more i would like to tell the readers that critisize Sahaba[r.a] is sin itself,BUT
You SHIAS not only critisize but called these SAHABA [r.a]AND UMME MOMINEEN[r.a] as Hypocrate?[Nauballah]and calling youself Momins,lolololololol
You Siad,
Dont forget Maulana Ishaq is not the Shia scholar so do not misgiude again the people.
I say you are the proven liar,when did i say molana Ishaq is Shia??????prove it….
I siad that hadis he is narrating,those hadis some are very weak or one of it narrator is SHIA,so who is misguiding the people YOU OR ME???????
LETS THE READER DECIDE IT……
You have said
Al-Kafi is not authentic book it is understood fact. Several Ahadeed are true and several are wrong, it is not like Sahi Muslim or Bukhari (I did confirm by my own and can provide further evidences).
I SAY
“Al-Kafi among the four Shia books (Al-Kafi, Al-Tahzeeb, Al-Istibsar, Al-Faqih) is like the sun among the stars, and who looked fairly would not need to notice the position of the men in the chain of hadiths in this Book, and if you looked fairly you would feel satisfied and sure that the hadiths are firm and accurate.[Saheeh]”Al-Tabrassi (Mustadrak Al-Wasa’el, vol.3, p.532)

“Al-Kafi, is Mutawatirah (100% accurate) and agreed on the accuracy of its contents (the Hadiths), and Al-Kafi is the oldest, greatest, best and the most accurate .” Sharaf Al Din Musawi(The book of Al-Muraja’aat, Muraj’ah number 110)

All the classical scholars believed Al-Kafi to be Sahih[Khumieni,P342[Alhukumat Islamia]
SO YOU ARE A GRAND GRAND SCHOLAR THEN THAT I STSTED ABOVE???????
Hope it is enough for you……..you want more i can give more prove,no problem for me……….

You Siad.

I m not in Taqqaiyah. Its so shame when someone tries to reveal the truth people like you give the blame of the Taqqaiyah. So you think Maulana, Maudodi, Maulana Ishaq, Maulana Tahirul Qadri etc all are in Taqqaiyah?
I say,
YES INDEED YOU ARE DOING TAQQIYA,
Molana Madodi,Ishaq,Qadri hates Taqqiya cause they are not SHIAS but MUSLIM…
I AM GOING TO TELL YOU A VERY INTERESTING THING IN THE SAME BOOK Molana Madodi has said about SHIAS that Shias are [PRODUCT OF POLITICS] believing on some mysterious articles self made and created,NOW TELL ME MOLANA IS RIGHT OR WROUNG?????
You Said

They are here just to split muslims. We need muslim unity now much much more than the any time in past. Everyone has a right to practice Islam according to his/her faith.

I say..
Agian you are using trumph card TAQQIYA,
You and Yours Filthy creed using the name of Pure name of ISLAM,so practice MUTHA,RACISM,MATAM,DO GRAVE WORSHIP
Give the Imams status of ALLAH but please dont do it on the name of ISLAM..GOT IT?????

You said,
It is our responsiblity we should stop these ignorent by writing the protesting words against them.
I SAY.
Again Taqqya to get the sympathies of readers,hidding yours real picture,Hypocracey again and again and again
AS Imam Jafar sadiq[r.a] have said that ….
No Verse in Quran has revealed about HYPOCRATES but for those who claims to be SHIAS[Rajal Kashi]
Yours own [INFALLIABLE] Imam has given a Fatwa on SHIAS,
You dont need FATWA from me……….

Allah says in Quran
[and be not amongst those who join gods with Allah, those who split up their Religion, and become shias (sects) – each party rejoicing in that which is with itself.” (Quran, 30:31-32).

Hazrat Ali[k.a.w] said in sermon

“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.
Nahjul Balagha,sermon,126..
CAN YOU ANSWER ME and Everyone here on this forum WHAT DOES IT MEAN BY HAZRAT ALI[k.a.w] ,GREAT MAJORITY OF MUSLIM????
AND REST OF THE SERMON,
Nahjul Balagha, one of the most revered books of the Shia, PLEASE EXPLAIN………

I know very well where did you come from and what is your ORIGIN, I m sure you are not Sunni. Don’t worry I have enough to EXPOSE your lie here. Your all arguments are based on self assumptions and deceive. Let the people to read the book (KHILAFAT U MALOOKIAT) I have put the link in previous message, and they will decide.

I said before “Don’t forget the Maulana Ishaq and Maulana Maudodi are not Shia” means they do not need to show the weak AHDATEEH coz they are Sunni. Unfortunately you tried to do the wrong interpretation as usual you do.

My time which is being utilized here is not for you coz you have been designed to split the Muslims, definitely whatever I m writing here is beneficial for those who are in search of the truth, but here I say thanks to ALLAH that HE provided me opportunity to reveal the truth.

Ok lets come to the point

1. ALLAH IS SUPERIOR AND NO ONE IS EQUAL TO HIM (SPEECH BY SHIA MAULANA)

Worship of the ALLAH is only allowed in Shia and Sunni Islam and no one worship the graves. HOWEVER, visiting the GRAVES of the Prophets (A.S) and their companions (R.A) has the great reward in the eyes of the Allah. REMEMBER that All the PROPHETS and their companions are like the AYATES and visiting to their graves remind us their great contributions for the propagation of Islam and increase our faith and believe over ALLAH. Probably you know that the followers of Christianity are facing the great trouble coz they do not have the grave of the Jesus (A.S). Majority of them have too much doubt about him (whether there was any Jesus or it is self made story) leading to the doubt on God and now you see in the west that majority of them literally do not believe on the God.

So definitely if someone try to worship the grave then we have to stop them it doesn’t mean we break the grave. At the time of prophet (S.A.W), people in Arab abusing the KABA by putting the IDOLS in it but after Fatah Makkah Prophet didn’t destroy the KABA but he cleaned the KABA from the Idols and stopped the people worshipping the IDOLS.

8. THE WRITER OF AL-KAFI DID NOT ACCEPT AUTHENCITY OF THE BOOK.

The writer of AL-KAFI Sheikh Yaqub Kulaini HIMSELF says in the preface of the book that this book is not 100% authentic (unlike Sahi Muslim or Bukhari) so after that there is no point to debate on the authencity of the book. Read the following websites “SHIA POINT OF VIEW ABOUT AL-KAFI”

ALSO KHUMENI never Said that AL-KAFI is authentic you are misguiding again. Khomeni point view also mentioned in the above website.

9. YOUR BLAMES

You put the blame on Maulana Ishaq and Maulana Tahirul Qadri that they hate TAQIYYA how can you say, did you ask them?

How did you say about me that I m Shia and doing Taqiyya?

Bhai! When did I accept that I m Shia so why putting the blame on me? I m providing the proves of the mistakes of SAHABA then it means I m Shia? So why not Maulana ISHAQ, Tahirul Qadri and several others Sunni scholars are SHIA too? Khuda ka Khaof Kaho Yar. Jhotay Ilzamat Laga laga key Apni AKHRAT KHARAB NA KARO. Anyway I do not care whatever you think SHIA and SUNNI both are Muslims I m proud to be Shia and I m proud to be Sunni.

Now, I leave the decision on the readers to decide who the liar between us is? There is too much funding from the ENEMY of Islam to split the Muslims. In order to make the stronger Pakistan this is the responsibility of everyone to work for the Muslim unity and stop the people who want to ignite the fire between Shia and Sunni.

They will certainly swear,
that”We intended to do nothing but good”Allah
testifies that they are liars.Holy Quran (9-107).

I can describe you best according to this
Holy Quran versus,
Wallahi, Allah has revealed this Verse about
the person or people like YOU.
As above you are repeating yourself again and again………
Anyhow i will give you the anwsers again.No doubt

YOU ARE THE MISGUIDED & DEVIANT ONE.

1)I will start from yours creed about the ALLAH.

a)“Bad’ah”; ALLAH tells a lie. (Asool Kaafi, Vol. No.1, Page No. 148. Nuzballah.
Now you will reply that this hadis is wrong or weak BUT you cant deny it cause if you do then
whole of yours self made CREED will sink.HOW
Bidah has saved creed of Imamate,When Jafar Sadiq[r.a] declared Ismail[r.a] to be next Imam,Ismail[r.a] died
while Jafar sadiq [r.a] was still alive.so Jafar Sadiq[r.a] according to yours creed reported to have said that
BIDAH has occurred to Allah,READERS SHOULD
KNOW WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN JAFAR
SADIQ HAS SAID THAT [ALLAH DOESNT KNOW
THE THING BEFORE IT APPEARS TO HIM] this
is what you believe[this is in yours own books]
This point lead to split in SHIAS CAMP into
ISMAILIS AND PRESENT DAY 12rs[Siabites].

Readers I will leave upto you if this is not a
shirk,then someone please explian to me what is
shirk????????

NO ESCAPE WAIT ………………………
“Verily, scholarly endeavour, according to the Shī`a, is dependant on the Four Books: al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī, Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh al-Şadūq, al-Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār of al-Ţūsī. These are from the accepted principle books that are as the Six Şiĥāĥ are according to the Commoners.”
· Talkhīs al-Shāfī {Muqaddima}, of al-Sayyid Ĥusayn Baĥr al-`Ulūm (d. 1422), page 29 [Najaf]
You have said taht as mentioned about saheehein 100%……………………

You have said
TO SAY YA ALI MADAD IS ALLOWED (EVIDENCE FROM QURAN).
I say.
Saying Ya ALI madad is shirk in light of Quran & hadis Mohamamd[s.a.w].

According to the very basic principles of Islam, this is Shirk (associating partners with Allah). What power does Ali have to grant our requests?
“And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah, so call on Him…” (Quran, 7:180)

Atleast we recite 17 times in our 5 times prayer…

“You alone do we worship, and Your aid alone we seek.” (Quran, 1:5).

Allah Almighty says clearly in the Quran:

“And invoke not, besides Allah, [anyone since that] will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did so, you shall certainly be one of the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers). And if Allah should afflict you with harm, then there is none to remove it but He; and if He intends good to you there is none to repel His grace.” (Quran, 10:106-107)

Allah Almighty says in the Quran to His and our

beloved Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w]

“Say [O Muhammad]: ‘I have no power over any good or harm to myself except as Allah wills’” (Quran, 7:188).
If we Muslims dont ask for help from Hazrat Mohamamd[s.a.w] then NO BODY……Including Abu bakr,Umer,Usman and Ali[May Allah be please with them all].
If the Prophet[s.a.w] could not even have power of good or harm over himself, then how can we say that ALI has such powers ?
The bueaty of Islam is a fiercely monothiestic faith, and rejects all forms of polytheistism.

Allah did not say: “Call on Me by the names of the Imams, I will answer your prayer.”

We should invoke Allah and Allah alone for Help, and asking anyone else is Shirk, the one sin Allah will not forgive.

Allah Almighty says it so clearly in the Quran:

“Verily those whom you call upon besides Allah are servants like you. Therefore, call upon them, and let them listen to your prayers, if you are (indeed) truthful!” (Quran, 7: 194)

This is a challenge from Allah, whereby Allah dares anyone to ask others for help. Nobody can listen to our prayers and grant them except Allah the Almighty.

Allah Almighty mocks those people who go to graves to supplicate invoking their Saints:

“If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call; and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you….But you cannot make those hear who are in graves…” (Quran, Chapter 35)

“Call upon those whom you imagine beside Allah! They have not an atom’s weight of power either in the heavens or in the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor does He need any of them as a helper.” (Quran, 34:22)

Allah Almighty says again in the Quran:

“Yet have they taken, besides Him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control Death nor Life nor Resurrection.” (Quran, 25:3).

Yours AYATUALLS are no doubt Kafirs and cause of them the general Shias follow them blindly under the name of HAB-E-ALHELBAYT ohhhhhhh
they have misguided the annocent genral shias,
I am MYself Syed,YOU Shias lie and put lies upon my ancesctors.YOU CLAIM FOR THEM WHAT THEY NEVER CLAIM FOR THERESELVES,ALL
THE AHLELBAYT OF Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w] were Pious and truthful and what you SHIAS has
made of them………..
Please you and i request to all readers go to youtube search [Dr Bilal philips on shia]
Shias has given ALLAH status to their Imams.which Imam never claim for thereselves.
Interestinlyyyyyyyyy
We will even find Shia who recite the names of Ali, Hasan, and Hussain whilst they do Tasbeeh, and claim that this is Dhikr. It is nothing short of Shirk, and Ali would burn such people on the stake if he knew that they were doing such things. In a similar manner did Ali[r.a] BURN the followers of Abdullah ibn Saba to the stake for the very same blasphemy.Recorded in Bahar ul Anwar,Hayatul Qulub,Tarikh Masoodi,Jala Ayoon,Ayon Akhbar.Kasf ul Asrar.

About Matam You have said.

I say
“Neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) nor his rightly-guided successors (the khulafa’ al-raashidoon)[r.a] nor his Ahl[r.a] nor his Compionions[r.a] did any of these things on the day of ‘Aashooraa’, they neither made it a day of mourning nor a day of celebration.

all of this is reprehensible bid’ah and is wrong. None of it has anything to do with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or the way of the Khulafa’ al-Raashidoon. It was not approved of by any of the imaams of the Muslims, not Maalik, not al-Thawri, not al-Layth ibn Sa’d, not Abu Haneefah, not al-Oozaa’i, not al-Shaafa’i, not Ahmad ibn Hanbal, not Ishaaq ibn Raahwayh, not any of the imaams and scholars of the Muslims.

The religion of Islam is based on two principles: that we should worship nothing besides Allaah Alone, and that we should worship Him in the manner that He has prescribed, not by means of bid’ah or reprehensible innovations.
There have been many other great heroes of Islam who have been killed in the Path of Allah, and we do not find the Ahlus Sunnah comemmorating any of these days. The Muslims does not comemmorate the martyrdom of Umar (رضّى الله عنه), Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), or Ali (رضّى الله عنه). The reason is that we find all this to be Bidah, and forms of exaggeration like the Christians who comemmorate the death of Isa (عليه السلام).
Mytradom of Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) was the fault of the Shia of Kufa.let me remind them that the Shia of Kufa whose cowardice, back-stabbing, and deciet led to the demise of the Prophet’s grandson.
HISTORY OF MATAM
Four years after the massacre of Karbala, the Shia of Kufa attempted to make ammends for their desertion of Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). They called themselves the Al-Tawwabun, which translates to “the Penitents.” This group went to Karbala to comemmorate Hussain (رضّى الله عنه), and here it was that they began Matam, with loud mourning, lamenting, and self-flagellation. These Tawwabun hit themselves to punish themselves for the cowardice that they had shown that led to their Imam’s death just four years earlier. This is the origin of the Shia ritual of Matam. It is altogether amusing how the Shia never really wonder where this barbaric custom started from or why it started in the first place. Little do they know that it is a testament to this day of how they killed their own Imam, and how their whole religion is centered around a false commitment to the Ahlel Bayt.

Continue
About Matam here one of Aytullah said that blood shedding is WAJIB EQUALENT TO Prayers,Haj,Zakat and Fasting
(It is requisite of love to be happy in your beloved’s happiness and to mourn when your beloved is mourning/sad. Islam has laid down rules and boundaries for every Wajib and Sunnath Acts. Mourning and Celebrating, are signs of Shia, have been left on choice of discretion in love. By doing mourning for Mazloom-e-Karbala (Azadaari) we are paying our reward (Ajr). Acceptance of our Aamaal( Deeds and Practices) stands upon paying Ajr. Now if anyone wants his Namaaz, Roza, Haj, Zakaat etc.. to be accepted ( by Allah) then it is imperative (Wajib) on him that he mourns for Hussain-e-Mazloomey Karbala (AS) and do Matam and shed blood. And if you want to strengthen the roots of your outward practices (zahiri Amaal) and bring perpetuity to them then water this plant with tears and blood. Our crying for Imama Hussain(AS) reflects tyranny of the tyrants and performing of Khooni Matam every year is remaining on promise we made to Allah whose proof is ” ”
Those who after making promises with Allah, break those promises and what Allah ordered to combine, they separate them. “Ahad Allah” means that promise which they gave for Allah’s supremeness, Md.Mustafa (SW)’s Prophecy, Ali (AS)’s Imamat, and love for his Shias and for Karamat (miraculous action). It is there in Tafseer that Allah has given orders to fulfill one’s duties towards all your relations, thus like fulfillment of one’s duties towards parents is Wajib and must/obligatory, more than this Md.Mustafa (SW)’s rights/Haq is most Wajib and superior because parents nourish your body and Janab Rasool-e-Khuda(SW) will give salvation to your soul. This Ayat orders include all those people who in fulfillment of their duties are going to go against Allah’s wishes.

Thus Shia is that only who remains on all promises made to Allah and among those promises, promise of Karamat is also there. Now, how to reveal it and when? This is the reason why every year during mourning period, Momin sheds blood and show their Karamat.

In our hyderabad, India, even Mominat (Ladies) do Khama Zani (shedding blood from head using Blades and Knives) some of Mujtahdeen’s muqqalids are becoming heated on this. First of all its our blood that we are shedding why is anyone disturbed. Secondly who has given rights to anyone to declare what is Haraam or Halaal. See the “Nas”( proof) on bloodshedding by Mominat in Mazloom-e-Karbala (AS)’s mourning. Mominaat’s are not excluded from the tafseer of the above Ayat. Till this world remains, Imam Hussain(AS)’s grief will also remain).
Interestingly IT IS PART OF FAITH FOR SHIAS.i.e
ARTICLE OF THE FIATH.source http://www.akhbari.org

About mistakes of Hazrat Muawyia[r.a] You must have read full book of Khalfat wa Malukiyat,so read the article Mistakes doesnt effects the sianthood,though Molana Modoudi is not only Hajjat upon Muslims,but yet we respect him indeed he was a great scholar.ONE thing more Molana Madoudi has said about Hazrat Muawyia [r.a]that under his leadership once again Islamic states has emerged as one of the super power and his 20 years of rule all the Muslims were united under his flag,
Mauwyia[r.a] has NO match with Ali[r.a],this is a very clear CREED OF AHLEL SUNNA.
For yours informations mistakes doesnt cancel ones faith,specially when the faith is atested by Allah in Quran and say of the Holy Prophet[s.a.w],
Mauwyia[r.a] was the compionion and Katabe wahi,brother in law of Prophet Mohamamd[s.a.w]

At End you have said 9. YOUR BLAMES

You put the blame on Maulana Ishaq and Maulana Tahirul Qadri that they hate TAQIYYA how can you say, did you ask them?
I SAY,
In matter of fact you are blaming Molana Ishaq,Qadri cause according to yours statemnt these scholars LOVE TAQQIYA?lol
Yes i know they hate Taqqiya cause they are Muslim[under some circumstances we muslims are permitted to do Taqqiya when some one life is under tread] not like you
Imam Jafar[r.a]“From ten parts of Deen, nine parts depend upon Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi, part 2, Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah.

We wonder: if 90% of the Shia religion is based on lies, what else do we expect from them than being chronically lying deviants? In another troublesome narration in Al-Kafi, we read:

“The Imam mentioned that the most beloved thing on the surface of earth is Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi, part 2, Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah, line 12, Riwayah 4, p.217)

Imam Jafar has advised his Shias to do Taqqiya while..
“Mix with them (i.e.non-shia) outwardly but oppose them inwardly.” (Al-Kafi, vol.9, p.116).

Allah describes the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) in the Quran:

“When they [hypocrites] meet those who believe, they say: ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: ‘We are really with you, we (were) only jesting.’” (Quran, 2:14)

When the Shia meet with the mainstream Muslims, they will say “We don’t hate the Sahabah and the wives of the Prophet;” but when they are in their own Shia circles, they spend all their time spewing forth hatred and slander against them.
Taqiyyah is a most peculiar institution. No other religion in the world advocates its followers to lie. Lying is considered a sin in all other religions. Lying about one’s religion is especially heinous but it is a must for the Shia.
You blamed me to dividing Muslims,How come you can say that when

Allah says in Quran
[and be not amongst those who join gods with Allah, those who split up their Religion, and become SHIAS (sects) – each party rejoicing in that which is with itself.” (Quran, 30:31-32).
I dint divide the relegion it is yours forefather IBNE SAABA[YAHOODI] WHO HAS DONE IT AND YOU FALLOW HIM PROUDLY,So it is you who is doing ittttttttt.

[Khuda ka Khaof Kaho Yar. Jhotay Ilzamat Laga laga key Apni AKHRAT KHARAB NA KARO. Anyway I do not care whatever you think SHIA and SUNNI both are Muslims I m proud to be Shia and I m proud to be Sunni.]
As I HAVE ALREADY CALLED YOU BIG TIME hypocrate indeed you proved to be……
We Muslim say anything which is related to Prophet Mohamamd[s.a.w] we respect it,obey it and love it,either they are Ahlelbayt or compionions we love them all cause they are related our beloved Prophet Mohamamd[s.a.w].Allah and His Messanger[s.aw] have praised them and become pleased with them and they become pleased with ALLAH AND HIS PROPHET[s.a.w].While you
caled them Kafair,Hypocrate and called yourselves MOMIN.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You curse them,You curse the Mothers of Believers,who has got designated status ordered by ALLAH to be the Mother of Beilvers.
How come you called yourselves MOMIN while those called Momineins by Allah and His Messanger to be Momins as disbeleivers???

SO let the READERS DECIDE IT,WHO IS DOING WHAT ME OR YOU………

I ASKED YOU SOME EXPLIANATION IN MY EARLY COMMENTS I WILL REPEAT THEM AGAIN AND WAITING FOR YOURS REPLY,

AS Imam Jafar sadiq[r.a] have said that ….
No Verse in Quran has revealed about HYPOCRATES but for those who claims to be SHIAS[Rajal Kashi]
Yours own [INFALLIABLE] Imam has given a Fatwa on SHIAS,
You dont need FATWA from me……….

Allah says in Quran
[and be not amongst those who join gods with Allah, those who split up their Religion, and become shias (sects) – each party rejoicing in that which is with itself.” (Quran, 30:31-32).

Hazrat Ali[k.a.w] said in sermon

“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.
Nahjul Balagha,sermon,126..
CAN YOU ANSWER ME and Everyone here on this forum WHAT DOES IT MEAN BY HAZRAT ALI[k.a.w] ,GREAT MAJORITY OF MUSLIM????
AND REST OF THE SERMON,
Nahjul Balagha, one of the most revered books of the Shia, PLEASE EXPLAIN………

Phir Wohi Bakwas! Its so SAD the same thing you are repeating again and again with different angles. I have answers several times with very strong on the spot evidences, but someone said true that “JAHALAT KA ILAJ HEKEEM LUQMAN KEY PAS BHI NAHI THA” I m sure if God Himself come and say you are wrong then you are not going to accept. Whatever you are writing is based on your own perceptions and personal grudge with SHIA Muslims and you are not showing any evidence. I MENTIONED USOOL KAFI IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC BOOK THEN AGAIN QUOTING THE VERSES WHATS THE POINT?

You want me to explain an address of the Hazrat Ali (R.A) from NEHJUL BALAGA
TU MERAY BHAI KITNI DAFA EXPLAIN KARON. At the time of Hazarat Ali (R.A) there were several people claimed that Ali is the GOD (NAOZUBILLAH). Hazrat Ali (R.A) tried to stop them and gave the several sermons. These people are still exist and called NUSAIRI and they mostly live in Syria and some of them in Pakistan and India. Same as several who hates Ali (R.A) after the Seffeine War Against Hazrat Mauvia (R.A) and this group is called KHUWARIJ.

You deliberately accepted in your last comment that you are Indian. I really don’t understand that why Indian and Bangladeshi do not allow us to live peacefully? Why do you want to split Pakistan, You have to realize the reality that Pakistan is the separate country and we have a right to resolve our personal issues by our own. Its so shame previously Pak Bangladeshi tried his best to Ignite the fire between the Pakistani Muslims on the basis of the Sects and Nationalities and now YOU. I m pretty sure that we will beat you at every stage of the life as we have done in 1965, 1971 and Kargil war.

but someone said true that “JAHALAT KA ILAJ HEKEEM LUQMAN KEY PAS BHI NAHI THA” I m sure if God Himself come and say you are wrong then you are not going to accept.
“JAHALAT KA ILAJ HEKEEM LUQMAN KEY PAS BHI NAHI THA”
To be very honest Hakeem Luqman never said that rather He has said that people living in supersitations then there is no cure of it.This is what he has said about Person like you.

You said.
I MENTIONED USOOL KAFI IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC BOOK THEN AGAIN QUOTING THE VERSES WHATS THE POINT?

I have given you yours own GRAND SCHOLARS referances,MAJLISI,TABRASI,MUFEED,SADUK
like scholars has declared them 100% now you and some USOOLI SHIAS Scholars are declaring it to be 60% AUTHINTHIC,LOLOLOLOL
INTERSTINGLY READERS
They declare that part of AKAFI to be unauthanthic WHERE there are Numerous Hadess from INFALLIABLE about THE MARRIAGE OF HAZRAT UMER FAROOQ[R.A] WITH UMME KALSOOM[R.A] IS MENTIONED OR MUTHA HAS BEEN DECLARED FORBIDDEN OR ADULTRY,there MODERN DAY SCHOLARS THOUGHT THAT SHIASISM WOULD SINK IF WE ACCEPT THESE HADESS AS SAHEEH[AUTHENTHIC] THEN THEY HAVE TO DECLARED THERE OWN ALKAFI IN MATTER OF MATTER ALKUFR TO BE 40 % UNAUTHENTHIC. GREAT WORK BY YOURS AYATUALL,YOU AND YOURS AYTULLAS DONT FEAR ALLAH,BY GOD THEY DONT……..

YOURS EXPLIANATIONS…
You want me to explain an address of the Hazrat Ali (R.A) from NEHJUL BALAGA
TU MERAY BHAI KITNI DAFA EXPLAIN KARON. At the time of Hazarat Ali (R.A) there were several people claimed that Ali is the GOD (NAOZUBILLAH). Hazrat Ali (R.A) tried to stop them and gave the several sermons. These people are still exist and called NUSAIRI and they mostly live in Syria and some of them in Pakistan and India. Same as several who hates Ali (R.A) after the Seffeine War Against Hazrat Mauvia (R.A) and this group is called KHUWARIJ.

TELL ME WHAT HAZRAT ALI(R.A)MEAN
The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.

TELL ME WHO IS IN THE GREAT MAJORITY,WHAT ALI(R.A) HAD MEAN THERE TO SAY?????????DONT PLAY GAME ANWSER ME,WE ALL KNOW WHO IS NAUSARAI AND KHUWARJ,NASABIES,RAFADIS
WHO IS THE GREAT MAJORITY ……………
GLORY BE TO ALLAH[LORD OF THE UNIVERSE] AHLESUNNA WAL JUMMAT…AM I RIGHT ARE YOU WANNA PLAY MORE??????

YOU HAVE SAID.
You deliberately accepted in your last comment that you are Indian. I really don’t understand that why Indian and Bangladeshi do not allow us to live peacefully? Why do you want to split Pakistan, You have to realize the reality that Pakistan is the separate country and we have a right to resolve our personal issues by our own. Its so shame previously Pak Bangladeshi tried his best to Ignite the fire between the Pakistani Muslims on the basis of the Sects and Nationalities and now YOU. I m pretty sure that we will beat you at every stage of the life as we have done in 1965, 1971 and Kargil war.
I SAY
WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAID THAT I AM INDIAN???????
I AM FROM PESHAWAR LIVING IN HAYATABAD
I AM BY BERTH APKSITANI,LIVED IN PATHAN CULTURE BY CASTE I AM SYED THIS IS WHAT I HAVE SAID EARLIER THAT I AM SYED MYSELF AND YOU SHIAS LIES UPON MY ANCESTORS,SHAME SHAME ON YOU AND YOURS LIESSSSSSSSSSS.
YOU SHIAS ARE RACIST CASUSE THIS IS IN YOURS RELEGION,

When the Prophet sent ambassadors to Persia and called them to accept Islam, the Persians responded with haughtiness. They rebuffed the “lowly” Arab ambassador and categorically declared that the “great” Persian race could never submit to the “lowly” Arabs. Indeed, racism in Zoroastrian Persia was rampant; the fire-worshipping Persians had the notion that they were racially superior to all other races.

The faith of Shi’ism found many supporters in Persia, and slowly the fire-worshipping ideologies of the Persians was fused into the Shia faith. The racism of the Persians eventually seeped into the Shia canon. The following are some Shia Hadith that blatantly teach racism, all recorded in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith. They are also available on Al-Shia.com, a very authoratative website of the Shia.

These Hadith (shown below) are Sahih according to the Shia, as they are narrated by Ali bin Ibrahim who is considered to be of the utmost reliability according to the Shia. He was one of the most prominent sources in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith.

“Do not [even] buy anyone who is a Negro…never marry anyone of the Kurdish (people) for they are part of the Jinn (demons)…” (al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 2)

“Marry not from the Negroes (Zanj) nor the Khazar, for they have near relatives whom are unfaithful.” (al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 3)

He further said:

“India, Sindh and Qindh–not a single one of them [from there] is intelligent.” (al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 3)

India of course refers to India, Sindh to Pakistan, and Qindh refers to Afghanistan. Khazar refers to the northern areas near the Black Sea. And the Negroes are of course from the West of Persia in Africa.

If we notice, Shi’ism is racist towards everyone other than the Persians. People of every region surrounding Persia are considered inferior, including Africans, Kurds, Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Indians.

The racism is also levied against Arabs and Arab culture. It is written in the Shia book “Tareekh-al-Islam” that when Allah becomes happy, then He talks in Persian, and He only speaks Arabic when He becomes annoyed. (Tareekh-al-Islam, p.163)
Another interesting point is that although the Shia believe in the superiority of the Prophet’s descendants, they only trace it (i.e. the Ahlel Bayt[r.a]) through the progeny of Hussain[r.a]. They ignore the progeny of his brother, Hasan. It does not take much thought to realize why this is the case. Hussain[r.a] married a Persian, and thus his progeny was Persian. Therefore, the Shia found it prudent to abandon the non-Persian progeny of Hasan[r.a] and instead they only trace their Imamah through the descendants of Hussain[r.a].
While we Muslim reject it….
Whereas the Shia Hadith advocate racism, the Hadith of the mainstream Muslims completely rejects racism. Here are some Hadith considered authentic by the Ahlus Sunnah.

The Prophet said:

“An arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor has a non-Arab any superiority over an Arab, nor has a black man any superiority over a white man or a white man over a black man except by the criterion of taqwa (righteous practice). All of you are from Adam, and Adam is from dust.” (As-Sunan)

The Prophet also said:

“Allah does not look at your shapes or your colors but He looks at your hearts (intentions) and your deeds. Creatures are the dependants of Allah and the closest among them to Allah are indeed the most useful to His dependants.”

Assabiyyah (nationalism/tribalism/bigotry) is strictly Haram (forbidden) based on the Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah.

The Prophet said:

“He is not one us who calls for Assabiyyah or who fights for Assabiyyah or who dies for Assabiyyah.” (Abu Dawood)

The Prophet said about Assabiyyah:

“Leave it. It is rotten.” (Sahih Bukhari & Muslim)
Perhaps I wouldnt have said that,had you didnt lie about me that i called myself INDIAN.Anyhow HOW IS IT?MIGHT RACISM IN SHAISM HADNT KNOWN TO YOU BEFORE???????

MUSLIM FROM EAST TO WEST IS ONE SINGLE BODY IF THERE FROM EYGPT,IRAQ,PAKISTAN,AFGHANISTAN,ARAB,INDIAN OR BANGLADISH YOU CANT SAY THAT DONT INTERFIAR,THAY HAVE RIGHT TO INTERFIAR AS PROPHET MOHAMMAD[S.AW] HAVE SAID THAT UMMAH IS LIKE A BODY IF ONE PART IS IN PIAN WHOLE BODY IS UNCOMFORT.

YOU HAVE SAID.
Its so shame previously Pak Bangladeshi tried his best to Ignite the fire between the Pakistani Muslims on the basis of the Sects and Nationalities and now YOU…

I SAY,,
LOLLLLLLLL, YOU ARE NOT MUSLIM,WHY DO I NEED TO Igenate fire between Muslims,You are not MUSLIM,you have derived yours CREED from NAUSARI,KHURAJ AND YOURS FOUNDER IBNE SABA[YAHOODI]HOW CAN YOU BE MUSLIM?

A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” (The Most High).

Why you SHIAS Dont call Hazrat ALI[R.A] TO BE FIRST IMAM???????THIS IS WHAT IBNE SABA TEACHING WAS……………………GOT IT???????

Ali (رضّى الله عنه), Hasan (رضّى الله عنه), and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) hated the Shia’t Ali, the people who claimed to be their followers. The Shia were barbaric, ignorant, and uneducated Beduins from Iraq (i.e. Kufa) and Egypt who were new converts to Islaam and who mixed the Deen with their pagan beliefs. They were strongly affected by Abdullah Ibn Saba, the heretic who would try convincing the Shia’t Ali that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed and had powers above that of a normal human being. Ibn Saba’s followers were known as the Saba’ites, the ancestors of the modern day Shia.

Abdullah Ibn Saba knew that if Ali (رضّى الله عنه) or the Caliph found out about this cult that was forming [i.e. the Saba’ites] then the authorities would clamp down on them. So Ibn Saba taught his people to use Taqiyyah (lying to save one’s religion) and Kitman (hiding one’s faith). Due to this fact, both Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and the Caliph had a hard time figuring out who exactly were the Saba’ites. Additionally, most of Ali’s time (رضّى الله عنه) was spent in Mecca and Medinah, far away from Kufa and Egypt where the Shia’t Ali and the cultish Saba’ites were growing. It is narrated that on more than one ocassion did Ali (رضّى الله عنه) find out about a Saba’ite and either kill him or expel him. But for the most part, Abdullah Ibn Saba was successful in getting the Saba’ites to infiltrate the ranks of the Shia’t Ali.

Ali (رضّى الله عنه), Hasan (رضّى الله عنه), and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) would soon hate the Shia’t Ali for their exaggerations, barbarism, and their cowardice on the battlefield. Ali (رضّى الله عنه), Hasan (رضّى الله عنه), and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) hated their so-called supporters, and wished to be freed of them. These Shia would claim that they love Ahlel Bayt and yet they would continually betray and backstab Ahlel Bayt, and do things that the Ahlel Bayt forbade. Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (رضّى الله عنه) said the following about the so-called Shia:

During the fight against the people of Syria [Muawiyyah], Ali said to his Shia:

“Woe to you. I am tired of rebuking you. Do you accept this worldly life in place of the next life? Or disgrace in place of dignity? When I invite you to fight your enemy your eyes revolve as though you are in the clutches of death, and in the senselessness of last moments. My pleadings are not understood by you and you remain stunned. It is as though your hearts are affected with madness so that you do not understand. You have lost my confidence for good. Neither are you a support for me to lean upon, nor a means to honour and victory. Your example is that of the camels whose protector has disappeared, so that if they are collected from one side they disperse away from the other side.”

In the same sermon, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) also condemns the Shia for being trouble-makers and fitnah-mongerers, saying:

“By Allah, how bad are you for igniting flames of war.”

Hasan did not trust these Shia either as they were very disloyal. In his book al-Ihtijâj, the prominent Shia author Abu Mansur at-Tabarsi has preserved the following remark of Hasan:

“By Allah, I think Muawiyyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my Shia.” [Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 , Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, Beirut 1989]

Distrusting his Shia, Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) made peace with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) and gave him the Caliphate. His Shia protested at this, and Hasan’s reply (رضّى الله عنه) is preserved in the most important of the Shia books of Hadith, Al-Kafi:

“By Allah, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allah decides between us. But I know the people of Kufa. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.”

(Al-Kafi, vol. 8, p.288)
Hussain’s cousin Muslim Ibn Aqil (رضّى الله عنه) was sold out to Yezid’s men by the Shia. Muslim Ibn Aqil (رضّى الله عنه) sent a message to Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) warning him about the Shia of Kufa:

“Do not be deceived by people of Kufa. They are those same Shia of your father from whom he so dearly wished to part, by death or by being killed. The Kuffans have lied to me and have lied to you, and a liar has no sense.”

Before being executed, Muslim Ibn Aqil (رضّى الله عنه) said about the Shia:

“O Allah, You be the Judge between us and our people. They deceived us and deserted us.”

Then, Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) would be betrayed by the Shia of Kufa, who would feed him to Yezid’s men who slaughtered Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) at Karbala. Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) would say before being martyred,

“Our Shia have deserted us.”

And the Shia betrayal of the Ahlul Bayt did not stop with Ali, Hasan, and Hussain; indeed, they did not even spare Hussain’s grandson, Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). The Shia would betray him on the battlefield, defecting against him. Before being martyred, Zayd (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Hussain.”
Ali (رضّى الله عنه) condemned the Shia so many times in the Nahjul Balagha, page after page of how much he reviled the people who claimed to be his supporters. Here, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) says that Allah will destroy the Shia of Kufa if they continue to be decietful, and he asks Allah to change his Shia for other supporters, because he distrusts his Shia who are not really his supporters but rather his enemies:

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 25

Ali chastises the Shia of Kufa:

“O’ Kufa, if this is your condition that whirlwinds [of deciet] continue blowing through you, then Allah may destroy you…Your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their [the Syrian’s] obedience to their leader [Muawiyyah] in matters of wrong, their [the Syrian’s] fulfilment of the trust in favor of their master [Muawiyyah] and your betrayal, their good work in their cities and your mischief. Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle.”

Ali [R.A]invokes Allah against his Shia:

“O my Allah, they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them. Change them for me with better ones”
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 183

Ali[R.A] says to his Shia at the Battle of Siffin:

“Keep quiet, may Allah make you ugly, O you with broken tooth. Certainly, by Allah, when truth became manifest even then your personality was weak and your voice was loose. But when wrong began to shout loudly you again sprouted up like the horns of a kid.”

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) talked about how he knew that his supporters were really traitors. He mentions it in this next sermon.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 4

Ali[R.A] says about his Shia:

“I always apprehended from you consequences of treachery and I had seen you through in the garb of the decietful.”
How many times did the Shia betray the Ahlel Bayt on the battlefield? First, they betrayed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of Siffin. Second, they betrayed Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) who refused to even fight Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) after that. Third, they betrayed Hussain’s cousin (Muslim Ibn Aqil) after they swore allegiance on his very hand, and the Shia let the men of Yezid take him away to his execution. Fourth, the Shia betrayed Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) on the battlefield, allowing Yezid’s men to chop him up. Fifth, the Shia betrayed Hussain’s grandson (Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain), defecting against him on the battlefield and leading to his death.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 29

Ali[R.A] says to his Shia:

“O people, your bodies are together but your desires are divergent. Your talk softens the hard stones and your action attracts your enemy towards you. You claim in your sittings that you would do this and that, but when fighting approaches, you say (to war), “turn thou away” (i.e. you flee away). If one calls you (for help) the call receives no heed. And he who deals hardly with you his heart has no solace. The excuses are amiss like that of a debtor unwilling to pay. The ignoble can not ward off oppression. Right cannot be achieved without effort. Which is the house besides this one to protect? And with which leader (Imam) would you go for fighting after me?”

“By Allah! deceived is one whom you have deceived while, by Allah! he who is successful with you receives only useless arrows. You are like broken arrows thrown over the enemy. By Allah! I am now in the position that I neither confirm your views nor hope for your support, nor challenge the enemy through you. What is the matter with you? What is your ailment? What is your cure? The other party [Muawiyyah’s Syrians] is also men of your shape (but they are so different in character). Will there be talk without action, carelessness without piety and greed in things not right?!”

In fact, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was completely exasperated with the Shia and he invoked Allah’s curse upon them:

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 36

Ali[R.A] says to his Shia:

“You are a group whose heads are devoid of wit and intelligence. May you have no father! Allah’s woe[CURSE] be to you!”

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) could not stand his so-called Shia, and he disparaged them repeatedly.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 39

Ali says about his Shia:

“I am faced with men who do not obey when I order and do not respond when I call them. May you have no father! Woe to you! What are you waiting for to rise for the cause of Allah? Does not faith join you together, or sense of shame rouse you? I stand among you shouting and I am calling you for help, but you do not listen to my word, and do not obey my orders, till circumstances show out their bad consequences. No blood can be avenged through you and no purpose can be achieved with you. I called you for help of your brethren but made noises like the camel having pain in stomach, and became loose like the camel of thin back.”

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) warns the Shia not to become heretics outside the folds of orthodox Islam. And he warns them of their fate if they do this.

Ali said to his Shia:

“Storm may overtake you while there may be none to prick you (for reforms). Shall I be witness to my becoming heretic after acceptance of Faith and fighting in the company of the Prophet?! So you should return to your evil places, and get back on the traces of your heels. Beware! Certainly you will meet, after me, overwhelming disgrace and sharp sword and tradition that will be adopted by the oppressors as a norm towards you.”

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) repudiates the Shia of Iraq for saying that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) shouldn’t go to arbitration with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). Ali (رضّى الله عنه) declared that Shura is the way, and that he is not divinely appointed by Allah. He condemns the Shia for saying that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was lying when he denied being appointed by Allah.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 70

Ali said in condemnation of the Shia of Iraq:

“Now then, O people of Iraq! You are like the pregnant woman who, on completion of the period of pregnancy delivers a dead child and her husband is also dead and her period of widowhood is long while only remote relation inherits her. By Allah, I did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you by force of circumstances. I have come to know that you say ‘Ali speaks a lie[TAQQIYA].’ May Allah fight you! Against whom do I speak lie? Whether against Allah? But I am the first to have believed in him. Whether against His Prophet? But I am the first who testified to him. Certainly not. By Allah it was a way of expression which you failed to appreciate, and you were not capable of it. Woe to you. I am giving out these measures of nice expression free of any cost. I wish there were vessels good enough to hold them.”

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) condemns the Shia for their ideas going astray and for them being heretics. And notice how he says that he wants the Shia to be replaced with the real Muslims.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 115

Ali says to his Shias that they are deviant:

“Your ideas went astray and your affairs were dispersed. I do long that Allah may cause separation between me and you and give me those who have a better right to be with me than you.”

Ali called SHIAS TO BE EVIL..
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126

Ali says to his Shia:

“Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land.”

And perhaps the best of all to summarize with, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) says that the people have sinned by splitting up into Shias (sects), and that they have left Islam and instead gone back to the pagan Beduin ways. He tells the Shia that they will dishonor Islam by breaking the pledge of brotherhood with the Muslim Ummah and insulting the pioneers of Islam.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191

Ali says to his Shia:

“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan] Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people. Be sure that if you incline towards anything other than Islam. the unbelievers will fight you. Then there will be neither Gabriel nor Michael, neither Muhajirun nor Ansar to help you, but only the clashing of swords, till Allah settles the matter for you…You have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its commands!”
source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul

Now I m more than sure you are an enemy of ISLAM coz beside my repeating the words several times that Al-KAFI is not an authentic book you keep quoting the references from this book. PLEASE READ SHIA POINT OF VIEW ABOUT AL-KAFI

If you are true THEN provide me on the spot ONLINE evidences as I m giving. There are several thousands books have been written Against Shia Muslims, but all these books are based on personal observation or grudge. The best source to obtain the SHIA beliefs is to meet personally SHIA ULMAS or those books which been recommended by SHIA SCHOLARS. Please do not say when you will meet SHIA ULMA they will do the TAQAIYA. You do not know ABCD of the TAQIYA and trying to impose the lie on SHIA. (WHY they will do the TAQAIYA???????????) HOW SHIA WILL KNOW ABOUT THEIR OWN RELIGION IF EVERY TIME THEIR ULMA WILL DO TAQAIYA???????? (USE your COMMON SNESE)

WHAT IS TAQAIYA?

TAQAIYA is not that you are trying to explain

“If someone hides his faith for time being just to secure his life then it is called TAQAIYA”

Probably you forgot you wrote before that SHIA deceives IMAM HUSSAIN (R.A) in Kufa now you are telling the new story that that Founder of SHIA ISLAM is IBNE SABA YAHOODI in 1700 centruy. Please decide first what story fit on SHIA or MAKE A NEW STORY. (YOUR LIE IS FURTHER OPENED HERE)

SHIA FATWA ABOUT MATAM AND BLOODSHEDDING

Please do not show me that SHIA do the blood shedding. Blood Shedding is TOTALLY HARAM in SHIA ISLAM and I have already given the web-link and would like to paste here again. If you say some SHIA do the blood SHEDDING then I agree, there are 10% SHIA who do still blood shedding but they do wrong according to the FATAWA.

IS IT RACISM IN SHIA ISLAM OR IN WAHABI ISLAM?

Racism is not in SHIA ISLAM, it is actually in WAHABI ISLAM. I have very solid reason behind this. The actual name of the SAUDIA ARAB was HIJAZ before 1930, but when FAMILY OF SAUD kidnapped the Saudi Arabia with the help of the British Government they changed the NAME and gave the name by his own family which is “AL-MAMLIKAT-UL-SAUDIA-TUL-ARABIA” means “A COUNTRY WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF SAUD FAMILY AND THEY ARE ARAB”
So my brother this is called racism not that you are trying to impose. As I mentioned before Iran is the SHIA and only Muslim country who are supporting a lot to PHALESTINIAN BROTHERS (WHO ARE SUNNI AND ARAB) and fighting alone with ISRAEL and AMERICA whilst on the other hand SAUDIA ARAB invited AMERICA in 1991 and LET the JEWS and Christians to enter into the KABA.

Another example that how much SAUDI WAHABI are against the ISLAM see the following video.

A WOMAN REFUSED TO SHAKE HAND WITH SAUDI KING

PRINCESS OF SAUDI ARABIA

PLEASE tell me is it allowed in WAHABI ISLAM to SHAKE HAND with woman and to TAKE the HIJAB off for a WOMAN???????

WAHABI BREAKING THE HOLY SHRINES WHY????????

I mentioned above graves of the PROPHETS (A.S) and their true followers are like AYATES and remind us their CONTRIBUTIONS for the ISLAM and increase our passions to sacrifice for ISLAM. NO one WORSHIP THEM we SUNNI AND SHIA just VISIT there, it increase our faith on ALLAH. SO why you people has broken all the GRAVES of SAHABA (R.A) including HAZRAT USMAN (R.A) in JANNATUL BAQI. ALSO if law is SAME why before the WAHABI CAPTURED in SAUDI ARAB Shia and Sunni ULMA didn’t brake the grave??? Why not PROPHET (S.A.W) and SAHABA (R.A) Himself didn’t brake the graves of the previous PROPHETS (A.S). PLZ ANSWER??????????? ALSO WHY don’t you BRAKE the SHRINE OF PROPHET (S.A.W) (NAOZUBILLAH)????????????

HALIRAY CLINTON ACCEPT TO SUPPORT WAHABI

After watching this video plz tell us who is DEFAMING THE ISLAM through out the world ARE they SHIA OR WAHABI????? PAKISTAN AND ISLAM has lost the Respect IN THE WORLD SO WHO is responsible are they SHIA or WAHABI??????

PLEASE ANWER MY QUESTIONS with the strong evidences. DO NOT Make COMMENTS BASED ON old books (not available online). WE required authentic on-line witnesses to support your comments and also do not try to make your comments lengthy by re-quoting my comments in your text keep it brief as possible (NO ONE HAVE A TIME TO READ LENGHTHY TEXT)

DEAR READERS,

Whatever I have written I have given on the spot EVIDENCES. NOW I would like to summarize my all comments

SHIA BELIEFE

1. ON ONE GOD (ALLAH) and ALI (R.A) is not the God

2. PROPHET MOHAMMED IS SUPERIOR IN ALL HUMAN BEING INCLUDING ALI (R.A)

3. THEY DO NOT MISBEHAVE WITH SAHABA (R.A) AND UMMAHAT UL MOMINEEN (R.A). THEY CRITICISE THEM LIKE SEVERAL SUNNI SCHOLARS SUCH AS MAULANA MAUDODI, MAULANA ISHAQ ETC.

4. THEY BELEIFE THERE IS NO TEHREEF IN QURAN EVEN FOR THE ONE WORD. (FATWA FROM SHIA MUFTI)

Voice of Human INJustice..
“..It is Allah’s Nature on which Allah has created humans. There is no change in Allah’s creation. This is the established religion (deen al-qayyim) but many of the humans know not.” (al-Room, 30).

How diceiting is yours nature,ohhhhhhhh,
I am proving every single word from yours own sourses but you are denying them,YOU DONT SHY AND YOU DNT HAVE ANY SHAME CAUSE TO HAVE A FOX CHARACTER,THIS IS THE TEACHING OF YOURS RELEGION.TAQIYYA AND TAQIYYA DO IT.I SWEAR YOU KNOW YOU ARE DOING IT NOW,
I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE REFENCES FROM QURAN,YOURS OWN BOOK,NAJUL BALAGHA,THE SERMONS NUMBERS EVERYTHING BUT ……MAGHAR SHARM TUM KO NAHI ATHY………………….

I have given you the hadees narrated from yours infallaible IMAMS about RACISM,
BLOOD HILL………….
NOW YOU ARE MATCHING IT WITH WAHABIYAT OR SAUDI ARABIAAAAAAAAA

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
HOW STUPID AND ANWSERLESS ARE YOU..

SO….Iran was known Persia before 1935,so it means whoever has changed it HE is racist,NO my MISGUIDED friend,it is not the case………
I have proved Shias to be RACIST ACOORDING TO YOURS OWN NONSENCE BOOKS.
What you have stated in yours reply that Saudi family has changed the name from Hajaz to kingdom of Saudia is FIRING IN THE AIR,
First it is nothing to do with RACISM AND SECONDLY give me a prove from Ahelsunna book as i have given you from AL KAFI,
OHH again you would say it is UNATHANTIC,WELL I will have to say that i have given you enough proof that yours all GRAND SCHOLAR consider it to most authentic book out of four,BUT DO YOU KNOW WHICH PART IS AUTHENTIC WHICH NOT??????
1)About TAHREEF in Quran over 2000 hadees are now Unauthenic[based on Taqiya]
Evidence of Tehreef (Alterations) in Quran

2:23 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true

Tafseer:-In the Book Kaafi it has been narrated to Imam Mohammad Baqir AS that he said that this verse has been revealed in this way on to the Prophet Mohammad SW by the Angel Gibrael,

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant in the context of Ali ibne Abitalib, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

2:159 Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-Indeed on them shall be Allah’s curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,-

Tafseer:-In the Book Fazaele Murtuzawi there is a saying of an Infallibe AS that this verse has been revealed in this way

Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance about Ali ibne Abitalib, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-Indeed on them shall be Allah’s curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,-

3:123 No Doubt Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a Wretch; then fear Allah. thus May ye show your gratitude.

Tafseer:- In the Books Tafseer Qummi and Tafseer Ayaashi it is narrated to Imam Jaffer Sadiq AS that the circumstances in which the Prophet SW where there with the people was not at all miserable or in great misfortune but this verse has been revealed in this way ..waantum Zohafa..

In the Books Tafseer Qummi and Tafseer Ayaashi it is narrated to Imam Jaffer Sadiq AS that Abu Baseer has read this verse in front of the Prophet SW, on which the Prophet SW stopped him and said Allah has not revealed this verse as such but instead this verse has been revealed in this way ..waantum Qaleela..

In yet another tradition it has been narrated that Prophet SW was not at all wretch but instead this verse has been revealed in this way ..waantum Qaleela..

In many other traditions of the Infallibles shows that the number of the holy warriors at Badr were 313.

This verse has been revealed for those (first, second and third) who has initially beleived in the Prophet SW. and when they were presented with the wilayah and Imamat of Ali ibne Abitalib AS and when the Prophet SW said “for whomsoever I am the master this Ali is their master”. that time those people and their hearts rejected it and became disbelievers. on the Prophet’s SW assertion they had done bayeth of Ali AS, this way they have again became beleiver, and after the Prophet’s SW demise they have not stood onto the bayeth of Ali AS as ordered by the Prophet SW and instead against the order of Allah they themselves taken the bayeths of the People for this Allah said where is beleive left in them and that they goes on increasing in disbelief.

4:168 Those who reject Faith and do oppression,- It is not the work of Allah to forgive them nor guide them to any way- 4:169 Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein for ever. And this to Allah is easy.

Tafseer:- In the Book Ayaashi it is narrated to Imam Mohammed Baqir AS that Gabreil has brought this verse with its honor in such a way that in this verse

4:170 O Mankind! The Messenger hath come to you in truth from Allah. believe in him: It is best for you. But if ye reject Faith, to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Tafseer:- In the Book Ayaashi it has been narrated to Imam Mohammad BAqir AS that this verse is in this way

O Mankind! The Messenger hath come to you in truth from Allah. with the wilayath of Ali, believe in him: It is best for you in this world and hereafter. But if ye reject His wilayah, to which Allah doesn’t care. To Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth…

5:67 O Messenger. proclaim the (message) which hath been revealed to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.

Tafseer:- In the Book Ahtejaaje Tabrisi it has been narrated to Imam Mohammad BAqir AS that when Prophet SW reached the plain of Khadeer Qum which is located 3 miles in front of Joafa. It was 5 hours passed the dawn. At that time Gabreil the guardian has brought very important and remindful order along with a promise of nobility and safety and said O Mesenger of Allah, the lord conveys Salam on you and says

O Messenger. proclaim the (message) which hath been revealed to thee in the context of Ali from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.

If it is about FADAK,MARRIAGE OF UMER FAROOQ [R.A] TO UMME KALSOOM,MUTHA PROHIBTATION,THERE WERE GOOD RELATION BETWEEN ALI[R.A] AND FIRST 3 CLAPHS[R.A]
Then you consider them to be UNAUTHENTIC otherwise ALKAFI is more worth then Quran for you.. GO GO and ask yours AYTALLAH,why where ALKAFI is matching the Sunni Doctrine they WHY WHY they consider it to be UNAUTHENTIC?????????????????????????

ABOUT QURAN
1.) Not Completed.
2.) Has 17,000 Aayats.
3.) Our’s has 6,666.
4.) Abu Bakr’s opposed the text of the Quraan.
5.) Original Quraan with 12th Imaam Mahdi.
6.) Do not produce Haafiz.
7.) Do not perform Taraweeh.
8.) Quraan will be read/ learnt when 12th Imaam brings it.
9.) Ali (R.A) showd original Quraan to Sahabah(R.A) who rejected it.
10.) Passages mentioning virtures of Ali(R.A) has been purposefully deleted from the Quraan.
11.) There are 2,000 shiah traditions making many additions and subtractions in Quraan.
12.) The ‘Murtaddeen’- renegrades have removed the name of Ali (R.A).

1.) The believe in Taqiyya.
2.) This means ‘Holy Deception’.
3.) To believe in something but express/ say something else.
4.) They say 9-10th of Deen is Taqiyya.
5.) They say, he who has no Taqiyya has no deen.
6.) There is a great reward in Lying.
7.) They say the great Imams Practised ‘Taqiyya’.
8.) They say Alli (R.A), Hassan (R.A), Hussain(R.A) practiced ‘Taqiyya’.
9.) They say Hussein (R.A) practiced ‘Taqiyya’.
10.) Perorm Jamaah salaat with Sunni’s.
11.) Visit their sick .
12.) Perform their Janazah Salaat.

1.) They say all Sahabah (R.A) companions except 3 left Islaam after demise of Nabi (may Peace Be Upon Him).
2.) They say Abu Bakr(R.A) Umar(R.A) and Uthmaan (R.A) robbed Ali(R.A) of his position of being Khalif.
3.) They say Umar(R.A) was a ‘Original Kaafir’ and ‘Zindiq’-renegrade.
4.) “Abu Huraira (R.A) was one of the fuquaha, but god knows what judement he falsified for Muaw’iyya and others like him, and what damage He inflicted upon Islaam.”
5.) They say Abu Huraira (R.A) used to fabricate Ahadith.
6.) They say Muawiyya (R.A) poisoined Hassan(R.A).
7.) They say Muawiya (R.A) was a tyrant opressive ruler.
8.) They say Qazi Shurray (R.A) used to issue judicial pronouncement in favour of the ruling party. He was a sinful wretch occupying position of Judge.
9.) One should dissociate with the 4 idols: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Muawiyya and 4 women Ayesha, Hafsa, Harid, Umm-al-Hakam.
10.)One should curse the above after each prayer.
11.) Pharoah and Hamaan refer here to Abu Bakr and Umar.

12.) Faathima should complain about Ali’s big stomach, no wealth and bad features.
13.) Abu Bakr and Umar are Kaafirs
14.) Abu Bakr is calf on Bani Israel.
15.) Ali is a mosquito and a fly.
16.) What did the Zuleikha of Makkah, Bibi Ayesha have, that the 50 year old Nabi (may Peace Be Upon Him) got moved to her.
17.) Nabi (may Peace Be Upon Him) accepted (in marriage) an uncouth person such as Hafsa. Not withsatanding the fact that she was a widow and facially deformed.
18.) Imaan refers to Ameerul- Mu’mineen- Alli Kufr refers to Abu Bakr fisq(weakness) refers To Umar isyaan(disobedient) Uthmaan in Surah Hujuraat.
19.) Umar is an illegeitimate child.
20.) Abu Bakr and Umar are worse than Shaithaan and they are dwellers of Jahannam.
21.) “When I entre Makkah and Madinah as the conqueror, my first duty will be to go to the grave of Huzoor (may Peace Be Upon Him) and exhume the bodies of the two idols.”
22.)”We shia’s know the three Sahabah’s(Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan) as being void of Imaan”

1.) “It is disliked but permissable to have Mutah with a prostitute, especially( it will be more enjoyable) if she is famous for her prostitution.”
2.)One time ‘Muta’ reward is Jannat.
3.)When the couple sit in Solitude, angels protect them.
4.)Their Speech is Tasbeeh .
5.)When they touch hands, sins fall from their fingers.
6.)When they Kiss, reward of Hajj and Umrah for both.
7.)On bathing – every drop from each hair brings reward of 10 Thawabs, 10 sins drop, stages raised by 10 fold.
8.)From every drop of water, angels created to make Tasbeeh till Qiyaamat.
9.)’Muta’ with believing women is like 70 times journey to Ka’aba.
10.) Contractors of ‘Muta’ will cross the ‘Pul Siraat’ like a flash of lightning.

READERS SHOULD READ THE LAST ONE…

11.) After making muta Once – The stage of Hussain is reached. After making muta twice – The stage of Hasan is reached. After making muta thrice- The stage of Ali is reached. After making Muta Fourth- The satge of Rasulullaah (may Peace Be Upon Him) is reached

Surely the Prophet[s.aw] has a greater claim over the believers than they have over each other, and his WIVES are their mothers of BELIEVERS According to the Book of Allah.(33:6)

Wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women.(33:32).

According to this verse WIVES OF THE PROPHET INCLUDING AHSEYA[R.A] AND HAFZA[R.A] OUT CLASS ANY OTHER OWMEN ON THE WORLD. WIVES OF THE PROPHET[R.A] ARE THE BEST AMONG ALL WOMEN OF THE WORLD,END OF THE DAY THEY ARE THE WIVES OF OUR BELOVED MUSTAPHA[S.A.W]
Ayesha Sadiqa[r.a] Only woman in history about his [PURITY AND TRUTHFULNESS] ALLAH revealed it in this words….

[Why did you not, as soon as you heard of it, say, “It is not proper for us to utter such a thing ? Glory be to Allah ! This is a great slander.” Allah WARN you that in future you should never REPEAT a thing LIKE this, if you are TRUE Believers. Allah makes His Revelations clear to you, and He is All-Knowing, All-Wise.]24-17/18

Those who charge with slander those Believing women, who are chaste but simple souls,
are ACCURSED in this world and in the Hereafter: there is a great punishment for them.(24:23)

HOW COME YOU[SHIAS] CAN IGNORE THIS PART OF QURAN,WHERE ALLAH TESTIFIES AYSEHA [R.A] INNOCENCE.????????

YES I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU [SHIAS] HAVE GRUDGE AGAINST ARAB AS IT IS MENTIONED IN YOURS BOOK…………….
[People of Madinah[ANSAR] 70 times more unclean and polluted than people of Makkah[MHAJARIAN](1.) “Manlaa Yahuruldul Faqiah” – Vol 1. P8.( 2.) Tahdhidul Akaam/ Ibid Vol 3 P258.
BUT
ALLAH IN QURAN SAY SOMETHINGELSE ABOUT SAHABA[R.A]

“You are the best of peoples[Sahaba] ever raised for mankind, you enjoin good and forbid evil, and you believe in Allah.” [3:110]

“And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajiroon (the Emigrants[Sahaba(r.a)] from Makkah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madeenah[Sahaba(r.a)] who helped the Muhajiroon) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.” [9:100]

“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave their pledge to you (O Muhammad) under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts and He sent down calmness and tranquility upon them…” [48:18]

You say[SHIAS] that they were Hypocrate and what ALLAH has said about them,
I am warning you FEAR ALLAH…………….

Imam Jafar has said that NO VERSE IN QURAN HAS REVEALED ABOUT HYPOCRATE EXCEPT THOSE WHO CLAIMS TO BE OUR SHIAS[RAJAL KASI]

Interestingly but might be a shock for SHIAS

In Kasful Gammah story narrated by Al-Arbali, “Then some people from Iraq entered upon him (Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen Ali bin Al-Hussain) and said some bad things about Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. When they were done, Ali bin Al-Hussain told them, ‘Tell me, Are you the (Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding Allah and His Messenger: such are indeed the sincere ones)? They answered, ‘No!’ Then Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘So, are you (those who, before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith, show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot))?’ They answered, ‘No!’ Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘Therefore, you disassociated yourselves from being one of these two groups and I bear witness that you are not the ones (who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.”) Get out of here, may Allah curse you!” [Kasf ul Gammah,vol4 p 512,Ibid, vol. 2, p. 291, under the subtitle of “Virtues of Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen”]

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) ”Fear from Allah! Fear from Allah! Do not criticise my Companions [R.A] after me; one who loved them, he/she loved them due to once’s love with me; and the one who kept malice with them, he/she kept it due to once’s animosity with me; and the one who annoyed them, he/she annoyed me; and the one who annoyed me, he/she annoyed Allah [S.W.T]; and the one who annoyed Allah [S.W.T], its soon that Allah [S.W.T] will﻿ punish him/her”. [Tirmizi, vol/2 p/249].

You have said that IRAN is helping plaistian Sunnis[this is only pasterturing shiaism OTHERWISE ARAB HAS FOUGHT 3 WARS WITH ISREAL[148.1967 AND 1974]IN ALL THESE 3THREE WARS IRAN WAS WITH ISREAL every Muslim country stop diplomatic relations with ISREAL EXCEPT IRAN, Iran opened the OIL PIPE FOR ISREAL IN ALL 3 ARAB/ISREAL WAR,GO AND CHEAK HISTORY.

FALL OF BASRA AND THEN BHAGHDAD WAS CAUSE OF TREACHERY OF ALQUMMI[SHIA] VIEZEIR TO ABBASI KHALIFA,TABRIV3,P356,ALBADIA V6,P241,AL MASOODI V9 P109[SHIA HISTORY]
MIR JAFAR IN BENGAL DITCHED AND MIR SADIQ IN MAASUR DITCHED TIPU SULTAN.
IN IRAQ MEHDI MALSA HAS MADE A TRUCE WITH USA FORCES JUST TO KILL SUNNI MUSLIM AND GIVE US THE GOVERNMENT.
NOOR UL MALAKI[SHIA] PM OF IRAQ IS PUPPET OF AMERICA,AZERBIJAAN TROOPS ARE IN IRAQ,INTERESTINGLY AZERBIANJAAN IS MAJORITY 12rs Shias country.As Hamid Karzia is a Sunni but a puppet of USA
SHAH FAHAD OR SHAH ABDULLAH TO ME THE ALL RULERS OF MIDDLE EAST ARE CRRUPT AND SUPPORTING USA JUST FOR THERE OWN BENEFITS, SO YOU CANT BLAME SUNNI FOR THERE ACTIONS.

When did i say that SHIAS came into being after Mytradom of Hussain[r.a]?lierrrrrrrrr

Voice of Human INJustice,
HOW BIG IS MOLANA ISHAQ AUTHORITY???

AYATULLAH FAIZ ULLAH[GRAND SCHOLAR OF LEBNON] HAS SAID THAT BURNING THE HOUSE OF FATIMA[R.A] IS FABRICATION OF
12RS AND LIE UPON UMER[R.A] THIS IS CALLED REALITY AND PERSON SAYING IS IN AUTHORITY HASSAN NASRULLAH IS MUQLAD OF FIAZ ULLAH…GOT IT??????????

You say that it is not only Shias who critize Sahaba,Sunni do as well,but when Sunni ULLAMA say a word against Ali[r.a] you end up in STREETS now what you gonna say about KHUMANI WHO HAS CRITIZE ALI[R.A] AND HASSAN[R.A] IN HIS BOOK HUKMAT ISLAMIA,,HERE YOU GO

[On Ghadir’s Day Khomeini criticized Ali for accepting arbitration in the battle of Siffeen, and al-Hassan for abdicating leadership to Mu’awiyah. He also claimed that Ali was not successful in establishing the Islamic regime as it should have been, and that neither he nor the Messenger, nor those after him, succeeded in applying Islam or in establishing the Islamic state, as well as that Divine Justice, has not been established yet.]Sermon given by him on Gadir day,written sermon in Hakumat Islamia P187.
If you want everything should i write be aviable online my dear it is not possible as you very well.anyhow you may confirm this Sermon…

READERS THIS IS CLEAR BLASPHAMY AGAINST THE PROPHET MOHAMAMD[S.AW] WHOEVER SAID THAT HE FAILED IN HIS MISSION.
OUR BELOVED MOHAMMAD[S.A.W] SUCCESSDED IN HIS MISSION THATS WHY HE HIS IS THE LAST MESSANGER,HIS HARDSHIP,HARD WORK,DAY NIGHT TRIED BEST ACHEIVED THE AIM WHICH IS NOT ACHIEVED BY ANY OTHER MESSANGER ECEXPT OUR AND ALLAH BELOVED HAZRAT MOHAMMAD[S.A.W] PEACE BE UPON HIM,HIS FAMILY AND HIS COMPIONIONS.
WOE AND MANY CURSE OF ALLAH BE UPON KHUMANI AND HIS FALLOWERS WHO CLAIM THAT HE[S.A.W] WAS FAILED IN HIS MISSION.

KHUMANI speech on the occasion of the 15th of Shaaban,BIRTHDAY OF SO CALLED IMAM MEHDI.WHO DOESNT EXIST] he claimed that their imam will succeed where all those before him, including the Messenger of Allah failed. As a result, the Muslim scholars issued their fatwas condemning Khomeini to blasphemy for deriding and holding in contempt the Messenger of Allah (may Peace Be Upon Him) .

kHUMANI another speech he delivered on ‘Women’s Day’ (2.3.1986), he claimed that Jibreel, peace be on him, brought down revelation to Fatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, for 75 days after the death of the Messenger of Allah, and that Ali was her scribe. By so claiming, he refers to what all the Shiites quote from their own books: that they have the qur’an of Fatimah, which is three times larger than ours and does not include a single letter from ours.

Thus Khomeini brings to light what was hidden and holds Fatimah to be superior to the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him), because the qur’an which she received was unalterable and three times larger than the alterable one which her father received.

He claims that those who are fighting under his leadership against Iraq and the Muslim countries, and spreading evil everywhere in the world, are more courageous and better than those who fought with the Messenger of Allah (may Peace Be Upon Him).

In his book ‘Kashf al-Asrar’, Khomeini asserts, “The charge of tampering with the Book of Allah with which the Muslims indict the Jews and Christians, is only established against the Prophet’s companions.” He further elaborated in the same book, “It was easy for them (the Prophet’s companions) to delete verses from the Qur’an, subject the Divine Scripture to alteration, and hide it away from people.”

He who thinks that Khomeini and his gang gratify and love the Prophet’s family is mistaken. In fact they use the false display of love to conceal malice against Islam, and justify cursing the first and the last of the ummah, and reviling every member from the Household of the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) called for the unity of the Muslims, or anyone who speaks we11 of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Peace Be Upon Him) .

For Readers i am appealing for JUSTICE why Khumani stament is clear BLASPHAMY against PROPHET,HIS FAMILY & HIS COMPIONIONS.

About there so called IMAM MEHDI,
Ahmed Alkatabi USED TO BE SHIA NOW CONVERTED TO MUSLIM HIS 18 YEARS CLASSIC WORK WHERE HE FOUND ONE ANOTHER STORY ABOUT IMAM MEHDI AND DECLARED IT ALL SHIAS FABRICATIONhttp://ansar.org/english/mahditheory.htm

They duties of Imam Mehdi….according to heretic SHIASSSSSSSS

Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes in Haqqul Yaqeen: “When Imam Mahdi arrives, Aisha will be resurrected so that she may be given a prescribed punishment and that Fatima be vindicated.” (Haqqul Yaqeen: 347)

When Imam Mehdi comes he will hang Abu Bakr and Umar at the holy grave of Hazrat Muhammad. (Majma-ul-ma’arif, page #49)

Before Qiyaamah all the Ambiya (A.S) will be back to life and assist Ali (A.S.). [Zamimah Maqbool by Maqbool Husain Dehlvi, page 46, Maqbool press Edition, Dehli].

People mourn on the grave of Hussein (A.S.) because he was murdered and the angels were unable to assist him. But when Mehdi comes and people will return to life, the angels will help Mehdi. [Aqida-e-Raj’ah Ash shafi by Zafar Husain, part 2, page 196, chapter 60, Shameem book depot Edition, Nazimabad Karachi, New Edition]

Before Qiyaamah, Nabi, Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Hussein (A.S.) and a few other sincere Muslims and some kuffar will be brought back to life. [Anwar-e-Naumaniyah by Naimatullah Jazairi, part 2, page 87, Bab: Nur Fi Kayfiyyatir Raj’ah, New Iranian Edition]. .
When the Twelvth Imam returns, he will bring Aisha to life so as to torment her. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 139)

You have said, SHIA KALMA AND AZAN IS AUTHENTIC (SPEECH BY SUNNI MAULANA)

ALIYAN WALI ALLAH IN AZAN & AQAMAH

AYATOLLAH ABUL QASIM AL KHOI
927. Adhan consists of the following 18 sentences:
Allahu Akbar ……………………………………. four times
(Allah is greater than any description)
Ash hadu an la ilaha illal lah ………………. two times
(I testify that there is no god but Allah)
Ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasu lul lah/ two times
(I testify that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger)
Hayya’alas Salah ……………………………… two times
(Hasten to prayers)
Hayya’alal Falah ………………………………. two times
(Hasten to deliverance)
Hayya’ala Khayril ‘Amal …………………….. two times
(Hasten to the best act)
Allahu Akbar ……………………………………. two times
(Allah is greater than any description)
La ilaha illal lah ………………………………… two times
(There is no god but Allah)

As regard to Iqamah, it consists of 17 sentences. In Iqamah, Allahu Akbar is reduced in the beginning to twice, and at the end, La ilaha illal lah to once, and after Hayya ‘ala Khayril ‘Amal, Qadqa matis Salah (i.e. the prayers has certainly been established) must be added two times.

928. Ash hadu anna Amiral Muminina’Aliyyan Waliyyullah (i.e. I testify that the Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (Peace be on him) is the vicegerent of Allah) is not a part of either Azan or Iqamah It is, however, better to pronounce it after Ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulul lah to seek Divine pleasure.

AYATOLLAH SYED ALI SISTAANI
927. Adhan consists of the following 18 sentences:
Allahu Akbar ……………………………………. four times
(Allah is greater than any description)
Ash hadu an la ilaha illal lah ………………. two times
(I testify that there is no god but Allah)
Ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasu lul lah/ two times
(I testify that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger)
Hayya’alas Salah ……………………………… two times
(Hasten to prayers)
Hayya’alal Falah ………………………………. two times
(Hasten to deliverance)
Hayya’ala Khayril ‘Amal …………………….. two times
(Hasten to the best act)
Allahu Akbar ……………………………………. two times
(Allah is greater than any description)
La ilaha illal lah ………………………………… two times
(There is no god but Allah)

As regard to Iqamah, it consists of 17 sentences. In Iqamah, Allahu Akbar is reduced in the beginning to twice, and at the end, La ilaha illal lah to once, and after Hayya ‘ala Khayril ‘Amal, Qadqa matis Salah (i.e. the prayers has certainly been established) must be added two times.

928. Ash hadu anna Amiral Mu’minina ‘Aliyyan Waliyyullah ( I testify that the Commander of the faithful, Imam Ali (AS) is the vicegerent of Allah) is not a part of either Adhan or Iqamah. But it is preferable that it is pronounced after Ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulul lah with the niyyat of Qurbat.http://www.akhbari.org/English/4.htm

This should be yours position rather depending on Moalan Ishaq.

I ASK WHAT STOP YOU IF IT IS PERSSIBLE ON GROUND OF QURBAT ADD FATHIMA BINTE RASSUL ALLAH, AND X Y Z YES THIS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH KHUMANI AFTER 3 SHADAH YOU ADDED 4TH ONE KHUMANI HUJJAT ULLAH,THIS IS CALLED PLAYING WITH ALLAH RELIGION AND YET YOU CLAIM TO BE MUSLIM,CRYING OFR SHIA SUNNI UNITY……….UNDER MEGA HYPOCRATIC TAQIYYA POLICIES……….

You said

2. PROPHET MOHAMMED IS SUPERIOR IN ALL HUMAN BEING INCLUDING ALI (R.A).

The prophet and 13 infallibles are equal and same in all and every aspect[KAFI,ASTABSAR,THAZIBUL AHKAM]
You will use again trumph card[Taqqiya] Kafi is not all authentic,WAIT PLEASE
ALI[R.A] IS AFZAL [SUPERIOR] OR IBRAHIM[A.S] ??????????????????

The Shia have exalted their Imams–including and especially Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–to a level of Shirk (associating partners with Allah). The Shia have granted their Imams a status of gods amongst men. Islam was sent to destroy Shirk in all its forms, and Shirk is considered by Allah to be the gravest of sins.

I Say look at the leader of IRAN [KHUMNIE]worshipping graves live aside common SHIAS mislead by THERE AYTULLAHS

If it is not the SHIRK then what is it???????????

Imam Jafar Sadaq[r.a] has said about graves,dont make them above the earth surface keep them at the level of earth,The Prophet[s.a.w] used to advise and order that,He[s.a.w] has ordered and broken by himself IDOILS so people must stop to worship them,He[s.a.w] forbade building GRAVES casue it is the religion of ZORISTIAN to build GRAVES and then worship it.AL-KAFI V5,P67,Astabsar V3 P132.Ittajaj Tabarsi V2 P34.
Now it is clear proof that you claim to be the followers of Ahlel Bayt but in matter of fact SHIAS follow ZORISTIAN religion CAUSE Zoristian religion base was PERSIA[IRAN].
Readers can observed that SHIAS Surcastical
name for Ahlesunu some time [wahabies,nasabies] follow AHLELBAYT WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

It was narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi[r.a] said: Ali ibn Abi Talib[r.a] said to me: “Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allah sent me? Do not leave any statue without erasing it, and do not leave any raised grave without leveling it.” (Sahih Muslim, 969).

“Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that.” (Sahih Muslim)

“May Allah’s curse be on the Jews for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” (Sahih Bukhari)

“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” (Sahih Bukhari)

“If any religious man dies amongst those people they would build a place of worship at his grave and make these pictures in it. They will be the worst creature in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection.” (Sahih Bukhari)

“Do not sit on the graves and do not pray facing towards them.” (Sahih Bukhari).

It is polythiestic the manner in which the Shia go to their shrines and cry next to them, rub them, and pray to them. It is Shirk reminscent of the Jahiliyyah times when the pagan Arabs used to do this. Tawheedullah (the Unity and Oneness of Allah) is the central tenet of Islam, and the Shia are guilty of violating this core belief by engaging in Shirk, which is the absolute major sin in Islam. The main emphasis in Islam is to stay away from Shirk, and yet the Shia embrace practises and customs that foster Shirk.

The Shia place a piece of stone or clay, known as “Turbah,” on the ground so that their forehead touches the stone when they prostrate themselves in prayer. The Turbahs are made out of the stone or clay from the shrines of Imams or saints. Oftentimes, the Turbah is made from the clay or stone from Imam Hussain’s shrine. The Shia Ulema have declared that no Turbah has a higher sacredness than a Turbah made from Imam Hussain’s shrine, not even the stone from the Holy Ka’abah.

By praying to stones made from the shrines of their Imams and saints, the Shia are practising a polythiestic and paganistic act of grave-worshipping; they are quite literally making Sajood (prostration) to the Imams or saints. Indeed, praying to the Turbah of these Imams and saints is Bidah (evil innovation) and Shirk; it is not much different than idol worshipping. What is the difference between the idol that Hindus do Sajood to and the Turbah that the Shia do Sajood to?
Shi’ism is rooted in Shirk; the Shia have allowed their so-called love for the Imams translate into polythiestic adoration.

By showing 10 PRINCESS OR 10 PRINCE ,it DOESNT mean they are representing Ahlel Sunna CREEDS,these are there individual acts.

Give me some proof from AHLEL SUNNA TEXT BOOK as i have given you NUMEROUS…..FROM YOUR OWN BOOKSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

NOW because you do not have ANSWERS it looks like you have been MAD and adapting the cheapest way to get sympathy of the readers but it doesn’t affect because WAHABI EXTRIMIST Islam is nothing except LIE. I again would like to open the BOX of your deceive BY ANWERING. MAJOR part of your comments are based on NON-SENSE but some of the points would like to mention very briefly as given below.

MAULANA SHIRAZI VIDEO IS FAKE

5 years old CHILD will know that the VIDEO you posted in your comments is FAKE. If you think that in 21st century people are so stupid then this is your mistake. Every one can discriminate that background VOICE is the DUBBING by someone else. I already explain that plz do not intermingle the NUSAIRIS with SHIA. The guys who are cursing HAZRAT AISHA (R.A) (NAOZOBILLAH) are not recognised in SHIAS.

WORSHIPPING OF THE GRAVES.

In order to open your LIE about the WORSHIPPING of the GRAVES here is the best example can be given by following Poetry.

MAULANA ZAFAR ALI KHAN who was one of the great Sunni scholar and poet says in his poetry,

RISHTA MERA KHUDA KI
KHUDAI SEY CHOT JAI

CHOTAY MAGAR NA HATH SEY
DAAMAN E MUSTAFA (S.A.W)

The meaning of the KHUDAI here is NOT the ALLAH but actually the mankind. If WAHABI will listen this they will put the FATWA of Kufr on Maulana Zafar Ali (LOL). Same example can be applied here if someone kissing the GRAVES it doesn’t mean he is worshipping. We all SUNNI and SHIA Muslims love all the PROPHETS (A.S), AHLULBAIT (R.A) COMPANIONS of PROPHET (S.AW)and great SAINTS (R.A) of ALLAHA. Kissing the grave is the indication of our love and respect towards Them NOT Worshipping. It increases further our beleive on ALLAH. VISITING the GRAVES of these great people of the ALLAH is not HARAM but also has a geat rewards to the visitors by ALLAH.

BLOOD SHEDDING ISSUE

I ALREADY described bloodsheding is not legal in SHIA ISLAM if some of them are doing they love too much to IMAM HUSSAIN (R.A) and responsible theirself FOR their sin OR reward.

IRANINAN MEETING WITH JEWS (ANOTHER LIE)

WE all SUNNI and SHIA BELIEVE that ALL HUMAN BEING are the creatures of the GOD either they are MUSLIMS or NON-MUSLIMS. Their properties and LIFES are NOT HALAL on each other so respect is NECESSARY. If Iranian PRESIDENT was INVITED by the JEWS for the PEACE TALK it doesn’t mean IRANIAN MUSLIMS are the FRIENDS of JEWS. All SHIA and SUNNI are against only those JEWS who are creating the PROBLEMS for MUSLIMS in PHALESTINE and Other part of the WORLD not every JEW and every CHRISTIAN is BAD. THEY are several very good nature JEWS and CHRITIANS live in this WORLD. But, unfortunately WAHABI BELIEVE on the KILLING of the every NON-MUSLIM. I myself NOT personally against to every WAHABI AS WELL coz there are several very great WAHABIS still exist but people like you are the DIRTY STAIN on the WAHABIAT. ALSO remember I m not SUPPORTING IRAN. My support is only with the TRUTH whoever on the right track I will SUPPORT. NOW WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEO AND THE OBSERVE THE LOVE BETWEEN KING ABDULLAH AND BUSH

LOVE BETWEEN KING ABDULLAH (SAUDI ARAB) AND FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH (DRINKING WINE) (LOL)

LOVE BETWEEN OBAMA AND KING ABDULLAH (LOL)

OBAMA BOW FOR KING ABDULLAH (LOL)

OBAMA RECEIVES GOLD NECKLESS FROM KING ABDULLAH (LOL)

THIS IS CALLED TRUTH AND REALITY not by uploading the fake and unrecognised videos. Let the readers to decide. We all Know about the BUSH and AMERICAN role to DEGRADE ISLAM throughout world. SO whats the point of HAVING THIS CLOSED FRIENDSHIP OF SAUDIA with them??????????????? THIS is not an indication of SAUDIAN INVOLMENT in destruction of ISLAM?????????

Dear Readers,

If you read all the comments through been written by me and Ali Shah Hussain then you can find much easier then who is on the right track between us. From the beginning I m trying my best to not to compleximise the SUNNI and SHIA Issues and trying to develop the Muslim Unity by only defending the Shia point of view (not attacking) and not WRITING any HADEETH or QUOTATION from Sunni BOOKS although it is much easier coz everything is AVAILABLE on internet. On the other hand Ali Shah Hussain wants FORCEFULLY to impose self made CONCEPTIONS on the FORHEAD of the Shia Muslims. Despite my indication of the WEAK ARGUMENTATIONS and REASONING used by him he does not want to quit his way and keep writing the CRAP. As I mentioned it is much easier NOWDAYS to copy and PASTE the Materials from one WEBSITE to Another that he is DOING.

He has a trunk card of SAHABA (R.A) and HARAT AISHA (R.A) to get the SYMPATHY of the Sunni brothers but his bad luck is that he DO NOT HAVE any SOLID evidence. Here is the good example that how the people get BRAIN WASHED. A large number of suicidal attack been made by the WAHABI school of thought in Pakistan SHEDDING the Blood of not only Shia but equally Sunni.

I would like to mention here that there is a large amount of the material been uploaded on the YouTube and several others website just to misguide the Muslim about the Shia. I m surprised that everything which is considered bad they put in to the pocket of the Shia Muslim. You can realize that the how much funding have been invested here from the enemies of Islam.

Voice of Human INJustice,
As yours CREED promoting and been promoted by LIES and FAIRYTALES,you are the worst and the best example of it.

Dear readers I have stated every single Hades from authentic SHIAS books with refences,Volume number and then it page number still this Propagandist,FOX characher adhere to TAQQIYA,this is how his all comments based on.
Anyhow how can ANYONE reject all these QURNANIC VERSUS AND TRADITIONS i have Stated in my above comments???????
WHEN it comes to you,you just use NON SENSE YOUTUBE and give PRINCE OR PRINCESS refences BULSHITTTTTTTTTTTT
I have already stated and READERS must have read it that SHAH FAHAD OR SHAH ABDULLAH TO ME THE ALL RULERS OF MIDDLE EAST ARE CRRUPT AND SUPPORTING USA JUST FOR THERE OWN BENEFITS, SO YOU CANT BLAME SUNNI CREED FOR THERE ACTIONS.on 7 dec 2009 comments read above.
So i will not let you to play around……….

You have said that
[Dear Readers,

If you read all the comments through been written by me and Ali Shah Hussain then you can find much easier then who is on the right track between us. From the beginning I m trying my best to not to compleximise the SUNNI and SHIA Issues and trying to develop the Muslim Unity by only defending the Shia point of view (not attacking) and not WRITING any HADEETH or QUOTATION from Sunni BOOKS although it is much easier coz everything is AVAILABLE on internet. On the other hand Ali Shah Hussain wants FORCEFULLY to impose self made CONCEPTIONS on the FORHEAD of the Shia Muslims. Despite my indication of the WEAK ARGUMENTATIONS and REASONING used by him he does not want to quit his way and keep writing the CRAP. As I mentioned it is much easier NOWDAYS to copy and PASTE the Materials from one WEBSITE to Another that he is DOING.

He has a trunk card of SAHABA (R.A) and HARAT AISHA (R.A) to get the SYMPATHY of the Sunni brothers but his bad luck is that he DO NOT HAVE any SOLID evidence. Here is the good example that how the people get BRAIN WASHED. A large number of suicidal attack been made by the WAHABI school of thought in Pakistan SHEDDING the Blood of not only Shia but equally Sunni.

I would like to mention here that there is a large amount of the material been uploaded on the YouTube and several others website just to misguide the Muslim about the Shia. I m surprised that everything which is considered bad they put in to the pocket of the Shia Muslim. You can realize that the how much funding have been invested here from the enemies of Islam.]

I SAY..

AHEL SUNNA is the DEFENDERS OF ISLAM from day first,AHAMDULLAH.
WHY Voice of Human INJustice AL-KAFI,ISTABSAR,TAHZEB UL AHKAM,HAYAT UL QULAB,NAJUL BALGHA,BAHAR UL ANWAR IS NOT SHIAS BOOKS???????????????
WHY SHIAISM IS NOT BASED ON THEM,WHY THEY ARE NOT YOURS HADEES,FIQA,HISTORY BOOKS????????????????????
IF yours ANWSER is not then THATS IT,
BUT IF YES THEN WHY ARE YOU HIDING AND TRY TO BE ESCAPE FROM IT,WHY ARE YOU NOT ACCEPTING THEM?????
MUFEED,SADUQ,ARDABALI,KUILYANI,KHUMAINI IS NOT SUNNI SCHOLARS BUT THEY ARE SHIAS 12ers IMAMIA SCHOLARS,DONT THEY??

How long you will HIDE and DECIEVE yours ownself?READERS?on the name of UNITY?taqiya?how long you will hide the filthiness of SHIAISM????????
Why these books are written by SUNNI WAHABIES?OR BY SHIAS RAFADIES??????????

Please readers note it,WHY AND WHAT STOP
THIS HYPOCRATE LIER Voice of Human INJustice,TO paste whatsoever HE/SHE wants????????Voice of Human INJustice is trying his BEST to decieve READERS,DIEING HARD then WHY NOT TO GET add from his concerned websites??????????????????CAUSE HE KNOWNS HE WILL BE TRAPPED IF HE DOES IT,CAUSE HE IS KEEP DENYING HIS ALL AUTHENTIC BOOKS.LOL

Shedding blood of any human is HARAM,irrespective of MUSLIMS,HINDUS,JEWS,CHIRSTIANS OR ATHIESTS.FUL STOP.This is the teaching of ISLAM.
We condenm every KIND of TERRORISM and deem it to be AGAINST teaching of ISLAM,We do support MUJAHDEEN in Paliastian,Afghanistan,Iraq,Kashmir AGAINST Isreal,America and India,THEY ARE OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS.
We BELEIVE and WE are 100% SURE that what happening in Pakistan.[India,America and Isreal] are behind it.No Muslim can support these MONSTERS,KILLERS..

Voice of Human INJustice.
Can you BLAME Chirstianty for the CRIMES HILTER has done to the world????????So dont blame if a person or group of person do wrong AHLEL SUNNA.

Though SHIA AMAL PARTY OF LEBNON[now Hizbullah] has been doing this suiside bombing in differant Parts of Lebnon since 1975,they were the Reason behind Lebnon CIVIL WAR…GOT IT??what is yours anwser to this????????

You have Said.
He has a trunk card of SAHABA (R.A) and HARAT AISHA (R.A) to get the SYMPATHY of the Sunni brothers but his bad luck is that he DO NOT HAVE any SOLID evidence.

I say.
Yes ofcourseeeeeeeeee we are the defenders of Islam,EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF PROPHET [S.A.W] AND EVERY SINGLE COMPIONION OF PROPHET MOHAMMAD[S.A.W] is LIGHT and way of SALVATION for us,END OF THE DAY they are the family members or compionians of our beloved Hazrat Mohammad Mustapha[s.a.w].
BILLIONS OF BILLIONS SALAM & DUROOD ON Mohammad[s.a.w] on His Family[r.a] ,Compionians[r.a] and his Guided Caliphs[r.a].WHATS THE PROBLEM TO SHIAS????DOES it depends on yours MOOD who is the family and who is not?These are the compionians and these are not???????

Hazrat Abu Bakr,Umer Farooq,Usman Ghani,Ali Murtaza may Allah be please with all of them were very closely related to Prophet Mohammad [s.a.w] and each other by boold or by Nikhah.

Nikah is an Arabic term used for marriage. It means “contract.” The Quran specifically refers to marriage as “mithaqun Ghalithun,” which means “a strong covenant.” Allah says:

“…and they have taken a strong pledge (Mithaqun Ghalithun) from you.” (Quran, 4:21)

The seriousness of this covenant becomes obvious when one finds the same term (Mithaqun Ghalithun) being used for the covenant made between Allah and the Prophet [s.a.w] before granting him the responsibility of the Prophethood. (Quran, 33:7)

The Quran also uses the Arabic word “Hisn” in reference to marriage, which likens marriage to being a fortress of righteousness.

As such, the importance of marriage cannot be understated. A man does not easily give his daughter in marriage away unless he is assured of the goodness of the husband-to-be.

Allah Almighty commands the Muslims in the Quran to only marry righteous people:

“And marry such of you as are single and the pious.” (Quran, 24:32)

Conversely, it is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to marry an unrighteous person. The Prophet[s.a.w] has said:

“You should marry the religious woman, otherwise you will be a loser.”

Furthermore, it is Haram for a father to give his daughter to a sinful man. This is confirmed by all of the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars), and so there should be no question on this.

The Shia declare that the first Three Caliphs were sinful and evil people. The Shia declare them to be Nasibis and enemies of the Prophet [s.a.w] and of the Ahlel Bayt.

But how can the Shia reconcile the fact that the Prophet [s.a.w] gave two of his daughters in marriage to the third Caliph, Uthman bin Affan[r.a] Why would the Prophet [s.a.w] give two of his daughters to a sinful and evil man? By questioning Uthman’s character [r.a] the Shia are declaring the Prophet [s.a.w] to be sinful by violating the Quran and his own sayings which clearly declare that it is Haram to give a daughter to a sinful man!

The Prophet [s.a.w] first gave his daughter Ruqayyah[r.a] to Uthman [r.a], and then later, he also gave him his other daughter, Umm Kulthoom [r.a]. What noble character Uthman [r.a] must have had based on the fact that the Prophet [s.a.w]trusted him with his daughters–not just one but two!

Abu Bakr [r.a], the first Caliph, was so close to the Prophet [s.a.w] that he gifted his daughter in marriage to the Prophet [s.a.w] Her name was Aisha [r.a], and yet we find that the Shia revile her too. They refer to her as a sinful transgressor, and an enemy of Ahlel Bayt. Would the Prophet [s.a.w] really marry someone who was sinful and impious? This is accusing the Prophet [s.a.w] of sinning and violating the Quran as well as his own sayings. By marrying Abu Bakr’s daughter, the Prophet [s.a.w]showed his undying solidarity with Abu Bakr [r.a], who–other than being the Prophet’s father-in-law–was the Prophet’s best frend and top liuetenant.

The Prophet [s.a.w] also married Hafs[r.a], the daughter of Umar bin Khattab [r.a] who was the second Caliph. How could Prophet Muhammad[s.a.w] make such catastrophic mistakes and marry the daughters of his supposed enemies? The Shia revile Umar [r.a] and accuse him of being an enemy of Islam. But this is simply preposterous based on the fact that the Prophet [s.a.w] married his daughter Hafsa [r.a]!

And to deliver the knock-out punch, Ali [r.a] gave his own daughter in marriage to Umar [r.a]. Her name was Umm Kulthoom (a different Umm Kulthoom than the Prophet’s daughter). It shatters the entire foundation of Shi’ism when we consider that Ali [r.a]) gave his daughter Umm Kulthoom [r.a] in marriage to Umar [r.a]. The entire Shia paradigm of the Three Caliphs being enemies of Ali [r.a] thus collapses.

As can be seen, all of the Three Caliphs (which Shia insult and call the “three fools”) were linked to Prophet Muhammad [s.a.w] through marriage, blood, or both. That is how close friends the Three Caliphs and the Prophet [s.a.w] were. Furthermore, Ali [r.a] gave his daughter in marriage to Umar[r.a], and this just shows how mischievious the Shia propagandists are when they try to make it look like they were all enemies. Far from it! None of them were enemies. They were all best of friends and Sahabah (Companions) [r.a]to each other. Indeed, Ali[r.a] was the vizier and top aid to all Three Caliphs.

Whoever insults the first Three Caliphs is thereby insulting the relatives of the Prophet [s.a.w] and Ali[r.a]. Is this a position the Shia would really like to be in? The truth is that the Shia propagandists are the ones who are Nasibis and they are the ones who hate the close ones of the Ahlel Bayt.

Please readers notic it.

I asked youa very simple QUESTION in my last comments.

Hazrat Ali[r.a] is [AFZAL] Supperior or Prophet Ibrahiam[a.s]????
I just need a clear ANSWER ALI[r.a] OR IBRAHIAM[a.s]

The Quran bestows the title of “Mother of the Believers” (Umm Al Mumineen) to Aisha[r.a] , Hafsa [r.a], and the rest of the Prophet’s wives:

“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their ownselves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Quran, 33:6)

If Aisha[R.A] is the mother of the believers, then the people who slander her, insult her, and criticize her are not believers. We wonder what will be the fate of those who speak of Aisha [r.a] with contempt, who repel Aisha [r.a], disassociate themselves from her [i.e. “baraa”], and call her an enemy of Islam? How can the mother of Muslims, as declared by Allah, be an enemy of the Muslims?

Therefore, anyone who declares “baraa” (disassociation) from Aisha[r.a] and says that she is not his mother, such a person is not a believer. In order to be a believer, a Muslim must accept all of the Prophet’s wives as his mothers as decreed in the quoted verse. He must treat Aisha [r.a] with the same respect that he treats his own mother with. Let us see what the Quran says about respecting one’s parents:
Readers please Read this.

The depths of hatred that the Shia Ulema have for the Prophet’s family (i.e. the way in which they disassociate themselves from his wife Aisha) manifests itself in the following fatwa passed by the Aalim Network on the very popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org. The Shia are discouraged by their scholars to name their daughters by the beautiful name of “Aisha”[r.a]–such is their hatred for the beloved of our beloved Prophet[s.aw].
Allah bestowed upon Aisha[r.a] and Hafsa [r.a] the special honor of being addressed in the Quran as both Ahlel Bayt and Umm Al Mumineen, a position of double respect not given to anyone else other than the Prophet’s wives [r.a]. This is something for our Shia brothers to reflect upon. Do they really feel comfortable criticizing people who have been elevated to such a high status by Allah in the Quran? Can any Shia claim to be mentioned in the Quran in such a manner? No mainstream Muslim is mentioned in the Quran like this either. Based on this, everyone alive today should know their place in this world as inferior to the Prophet’s wives; and inferior people should not criticize those higher in rank than them (i.e. higher in the ranks of Allah). We ask: are any of the contemporary Shia Ayatollahs mentioned in the Quran and bestowed an honor like the Prophet’s wives? The answer is a resounding no: none of them are mentioned in the Quran, and so it is up to the Shia wether or not he chooses to follow those honored in the Quran (i.e. the Prophet’s wives) or those who malign those honored in the Quran.

QUESTION:

as salaam alaikum –

I have a brief question for you concerning the name A’isha. I am fairly new to Islam and me and my wife are expecting our first child. At any rate, I was wondering if such a name would be discouraged within the Shi’a Islamic community due to the association she had with rebelling against ‘Ali etc. or if it is a common enough name so as to not have relevence in such matters. Your advice will be much appreciated.

ANSWER:

Salaamun ‘alaykum,

Due to her actions against Imam Ali during the times of the Prophet and after his death (including the famous battle of the Camel), the followers of the ahl al-bayt are not encouraged to keep her name for their children.

I shall hereby provide purely Shia sources to confirm the fact that the Infallible Imams of the Shia did in fact name their daughters with the name of “Aisha”:

1. Aisha bint Musa al-Kadhim: This was the daughter of the seventh Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely Imam Musa al-Kadhim. The esteemed Shia scholar, Muhammad Taqi al-Tustari, states in Tawarikh al-Nabi wa al-Aal [p. 125-126] that Imam Musa al-Kadhim had seventeen daughters and they were named “Fatima al-Kubra, Fatima al-Sughra, Ruqayyah, Ruqayyah al-Sughra, Hakima…… Aisha, Zaynad and Khadijah.” Shaikh Mufid also mentions her in al-Irshad [p.303]. Two other strong Shia references are Umdat al-Talib of Ibn Anba [p. 266 {footnote}] and al-Anwar al-Nu`maniyya of Ni`mat Allah al-Jaza’iri [v.1, p.380]. The name of this daughter is also mentioned in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan al-Irbili [v.2, p.90 and 217].

2. Aisha bint Ali al-Rida: This was the daughter of the eight Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely Imam Ali al-Rida. The famous Shia Qadi, Ibn al-Khashab, said in Mawalid Ahl al-Bayt: “(Imam) Al-Rida had five sons and one daughter. They were Muhammad al-Qani, al-Hasan, Jafar, Ibrahim, al-Hussain and the daughter whose name was Aisha.” This is quoted by Muhammad Taqi al-Tustari in Tawarikh al-Nabi wa al-Aal [p.128].

3. Aisha bint Ali Zayn al-Abidin: This was the daughter of the fourth Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely Imam al-Abidin. This fact is referenced in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan al-Irbili [v. 2, p. 334].

4. Aisha bint Jafar as-Sadiq: This was the daughter of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, the sixth of the Infallible Imams of the Shia. This is also recorded in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan al-Irbili [v. 2, p. 373]).

5. Aisha bint Ali al-Hadi: This was the daughter of the tenth Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely Imam Ali al-Hadi. This is mentioned by Shaikh al-Mufid in al-Irshad [p.334] and also in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan al-Iribli [v.2, p.334]

6. Aisha bint Jafar ibn Musa al-Kadhim: This was the grand-daughter of the Infallible Imam of the Shia (i.e. the daughter of the Imam’s son, Jafar ibn Musa). This is stated by Abu al-Hasan al-Umari in al-Mujdi [p.109].

And there are many more such examples. The fact of the matter is that none of the eleven Imams of the Shia (the last one did not exist) ever disassociated themselves from the Prophet’s wives nor any of the Sahabah. This is a myth propagated by the Shia leaders who are the haters of Ahlel Bayt and who do not follow the Sunnah of the Imams, which is to love and adhere to the Prophet’s wives and the Sahabah. The eleven Imams never hated to name their daughters “Aisha” so why should the Shia Ayatollahs hate to do that? We ask our dear Shia brothers to turn away from their hateful leaders, reject the way of Shi’ism KUFR, and to instead accept the mainstream Islam which was practised by all eleven of the Imams.

Voice of INHuman INJustice,
Now you cant use TAQIYA nor you can say that Quran is unathentic[Mazallah] or SHIAS books are not authentic,IF these SHIAS BOOKS ARE NOT AUTHENTIC THEN HOW STANDS SHIAISM?Why you follow the RELIGION of IBNE SABA YAHOODI AND KUFR AYATULLAHS?PLEASE FOR ALLAH SAKE SEEK THE TRUTHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The Ahlel Bayt[r.a] were never Shia,They Never claimed what Shia claim about them,Shia put lies upon these Pious Ahle Mohaammad[s.a.w]. The Ahlel Bayt[r.a] were always part of the mainstream Islam. How could the Ahlel Bayt[r.a] be Shia when Allah said in the Quran:

“…and be not amongst those who join gods with Allah, those who split up their Religion, and become shias (sects) – each party rejoicing in that which is with itself.” (Quran, 30:31-32)

Why would they divide the religion when this Ayat clearly states not to divide????????They were the best people of their time and role model to us till today.

The first 11 Imams were pious individuals who were a part of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah; they had nothing to do with the Shia. None of them claimed Imamah as the Shia claim, because this would be accusing them of being Dajjals, and they were innocent of that. This is similar to the case of Prophet Jesus (may Allah be pleased with him), who was a Muslim and not a Christian. The Christians, by their beliefs, have accused Prophet Jesus of being one of the Tawagheet, and yet we know that Prophet Jesus was innocent of that. In the same manner that Prophet Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, similarly did the 11 Imams never claim for themselves Imamah (i.e. divine appointment). The Muslims have a greater right to Prophet Jesus than do the Christians, and so too do the Sunnis have a greater right to the 11 Imams than do the Shia.

We ask Allah to send His Blessings down upon each and every one of the 11 Imams, starting from Ali ibn Abi Talib all the way to Hasan al-Askari, may Allah be well-pleased with them all! They were not only the pious descendants of Ahlel Bayt, but they were also from amongst the best of people.

As for the 12th Imam, he did not exist, because Hasan al-Askari (may Allah be well-pleased with him) did not have a son.He died Issueless.

Shaykh Gibril Haddad[Grand Ahlel Sunna Scholar] was asked about the status of the Imams of the Shia, to which he replied:

“Each one of them was a pious, upright Muslim from the noble Prophetic Tree and many of them were also among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.”

The following question to Shaykh Maqbool Ahmad al-Makki, a graduate of Umm al-Qurra: “What is the status of the 11 Imams?” To which the Shaykh replied:

“There is no doubt that they were righteous and they were amongst the pious spiritual leaders of the Muslims. They had nothing to do with the Shia.”

In the Nahjul Balagha, one of the most revered books of the Shia, Ali said in Sermon 126:

“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.”

It is truly sad that people have exploited the memory of the Ahlel Bayt in order to schism into various sects, against the Command of Allah. The Ahlel Bayt were Muwahiddoon (Unitarians of Islam) who would never split into sects.

Voice of Human INJustice,
Come on anwser me……..you took more then week?Is that much hard question to answer?You will be expose…….Fearing……..Think and please seek the truth,i am not here to Insult or degrade some one,call some one or group or sect kafar or misguided,but being Muslim i have duty to call for GOOD.

As Imam Mutaqiam wo Sadaqian,4th Khalifa rashad Hazrat Ali Al Murtaza[k.u.w] have said that one should use his knowledge to guide himself and others.

May Allah Guide us all.Ameen

I asked you a very simple QUESTION in my last comments.

Hazrat Ali[r.a] is [AFZAL] Supperior or Prophet Ibrahiam[a.s]????
I just need a clear ANSWER ALI[r.a] OR IBRAHIAM[a.s]

@Admin,why you are not this message on board?you have seen that i have exposed him and his filthy CULT,Please Let it come on board[wall]
it has been more then 10 days,i know he cant anwser it,if he does,he will be expose and all what he has stated in his earlier comments will beocme invalid and void,please let it come on wall.
it is my 3rd time i am posting it and admin is keep deleting it,if incase u are not ready to publish or let my comment on wall then i will never write comments on urs site,
until now u had been very neutral to both of us but now u are discremenating

WOW, kisi nay SAHI KAHA HAI “BILLI KO KHUWAB MAIN BHI CHECHRAY NAZAR AATAY HAIN” Your example is like SOMEONE who is searching the direction using a TORCH in the presence of SUNLIGHT. It is clear from your comments that WHATEVER CRAP you are posting here is for your OWN EGO not for the sake of the ALLAH. You just want to defeat me NOT want to LEARN or ACHIEVE anything. I have already EXPOSED you in above paragraphs and now by writing a lot of CRAPS you are EXPOSING yourself. This example also fits on you “CAT LEAKS HER OWN WOUNDS” I believe on QUALITY not on QUANTITY. HONESTLY, I really don’t UNDERSTAND what BASICALLY you are trying to PROVE in all above your COMMENTS. I have answered mostly all of your above QUESTIONS and you HAVE not properly even one of mine. I advise you PLZ write 200 more PAGES, probably admin will pay you some money for this JOB (LOL), you are proving yourself Stupid and Ignorant. I WILL SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN I believe on SUNNI AND SHIA MUSLIMS UNITY and Don’t called yourself you are SUNNI coz ALL Sunni do not think VISITING THE grave means WORSHIPPING. I will not follow your way AND also don’t FORGET to quote my comments in yours (LOL). ALL THE BEST.

Voice of InHuman InJustice,
Having spent 2 weeks with yours Hidden Imam[who doesnt exist]lol,who was supposed to be here on earth to estabished Justice,went into CAVE cause of the fear to face INJUSTICE…lol….Fairtales one after another.So this is what he advised to reply…

[WOW, kisi nay SAHI KAHA HAI “BILLI KO KHUWAB MAIN BHI CHECHRAY NAZAR AATAY HAIN” Your example is like SOMEONE who is searching the direction using a TORCH in the presence of SUNLIGHT. It is clear from your comments that WHATEVER CRAP you are posting here is for your OWN EGO not for the sake of the ALLAH. You just want to defeat me NOT want to LEARN or ACHIEVE anything. I have already EXPOSED you in above paragraphs and now by writing a lot of CRAPS you are EXPOSING yourself. This example also fits on you “CAT LEAKS HER OWN WOUNDS” I believe on QUALITY not on QUANTITY. HONESTLY, I really don’t UNDERSTAND what BASICALLY you are trying to PROVE in all above your COMMENTS. I have answered mostly all of your above QUESTIONS and you HAVE not properly even one of mine. I advise you PLZ write 200 more PAGES, probably admin will pay you some money for this JOB (LOL), you are proving yourself Stupid and Ignorant. I WILL SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN I believe on SUNNI AND SHIA MUSLIMS UNITY and Don’t called yourself you are SUNNI coz ALL Sunni do not think VISITING THE grave means WORSHIPPING. I will not follow your way AND also don’t FORGET to quote my comments in yours (LOL). ALL THE BEST.]

You know you are answerless and helpless.It would have been better not to reply rather answering NONSENSE,you know this is not the answer of my questions and Readers know as well.
Dont decieve yourself,you know you are wrong,yours own central EGO not permitting you to accept the TRUTH

[and thus they gave the lie to the Truth that has now come to them. Soon they will come upon some news concerning what they had mocked at].(6:5)
100% APPLICABLE ON YOU&SHIAS???????????

Where did i say that visiting grave is a worsship?dont mislead the readers by Yours foxy Character,You again want to decieve the readers just to get their sympathies,You cant play around as i told you before.i said to do grave worshhip it is a SHIRK as generally practised by SHAIS.
To visit graveyard It is not forbidden in Islam,Yes to make it a place of worsship or do grave worshhip it is SHIRK without doubt in Islam.

Voice of InHuman InJustice,
Come with solid prove i.e QURAN & HADIS, not by emotion or yours own INTERPRETATION….LOL

You Said,
I believe on QUALITY not on QUANTITY.

I say.
I fallow my Imam Hazrat Ali AL Murtaza[k.u.w]

“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the GREAT MAJORITY of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the ONE ISOLATED from the GROUP is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.”
How is that?So you think you got more WISDOM then ALI?QUANTITY AND QUILITY?LOLOLOL

You said.
I advise you PLZ write 200 more PAGES, probably admin will pay you some money for this JOB (LOL),

I say.
Have you ever been paid by admin?HOW MUCH & WHY?

I can understand yours frustrations,how nicely you are blaming the admin by walling of my CHECK MATE COMENTS???

You havnt answered my question yet?????

Hazrat Ali[r.a] is [AFZAL] Supperior or Prophet Ibrahiam[a.s]????
I just need a clear ANSWER ALI[r.a] OR IBRAHIAM[a.s]

Asslamo alacum my brothers/sisters in faith
Please, let us not talk about shia/sunni or any other sector. We should not call any muslim “Kafir” who believes Mohammad(s.a.w)as a last and true prophet. Chief and prominent of all prophets. I have never seen any shia calling any other muslim “Kafir” but I have seen sunni calling shia “kafir” brailvi calling deobandi “kafir” etc.etc…Why shias don’t respect sahabas, because they quote ahadiths of “Bukhari” which clearly mention about Hazrat umar, yelling on Mohammad(s.a.w) and also another 2nd hadith
he was saying(ma az Allah)Mohammad(s.a.w)is saying b.s. Yes! it is clearly mentioned in Bokhari, \muslim, and Tirmzi.
The question is would you respect that person who insults your prophet.
Still love those people? Allah subhana taala forgive us and show us the right path.
Let us stick to one common thing for us, we all should say, Allah subhana taala’s laa’nut on all those who insulted our great prophet, no matter who ever was. We should forget all our differences and stick with the basics of Islam and do not make big issues of supplementary and less important stuff. By the way, you will be surprised to hear that Qadri and Geelani’s are 100% shia but…but..
the reason I am saying this because our family is not only Qadri but also we have millions of sunni
MOREEDS, who come to our forefathers tomb and pray……………………

Syed Shah,
It is very hard to distiguish what time the Shia is under Taqqiya and what time not?
I dont know you are the same Voice of Justice or Syed Shah???????????God knows better.
It seems Voice of Justice have adopted Syed Shah…
Anyhow let see……..
You have said,
We should not call any muslim “Kafir” who believes Mohammad(s.a.w)as a last and true prophet. Chief and prominent of all prophets.
I say,
I fully agree without doubt.
Wait a minute
What about Rafadies[Shia] who says………..
1)They say all Sahabah (R.A) companions except 3 left Islaam after demise of Prophet[pbuh]Mullah Baqir – Jilal Uyoon- 58 Chapter on Faathima.

2)Abu Bakr and Umar are Kaafirs.Haqqul Yaqeen – P552.

3)What did the Zuleikha of Makkah, Bibi Ayesha have, that the 50 year old Nabi (may Peace Be Upon Him) got moved to her.Haqeeat Fiqh Hanafi P64 /Ghulaam Hussain Naqui.

How can be Shias claim to be Muslim while calling the People who are Chief of the Believers and Mother of the Believers Kafar?
No doubt Shias are Compeletly Misguided Shian Dajjal Not Shian Ali[k.u.w]

Lets see what did ALLAH says in Quran about Sahaba.[r.a]
“You are the best of peoples[Compionions of Prophet [s.a.w] ever raised for mankind, you enjoin good and forbid evil, and you believe in Allah.” [3:110]

“And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajiroon (the Emigrants from Makkah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madeenah who helped the Muhajiroon) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.” [9:100]

Readers know who were the Mahajiroon and Ansar that is Compioninos of Allah Beloved Prophet[s.a.w].

And again Allah AL Mighty say about Sahaba…

“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave their pledge to you (O Muhammad) under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts and He sent down calmness and tranquility upon them…” [48:18]

Dear Readers Abu Bakr Sadique[r.a] and Umer Farroq[r.a] were among the shaba who took pledge at hand of Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w] and more interestingly that this pledge was taken by
Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w] TO TAKE REVENGE OF Hazrat USMAN GHANI[r.a]

Allah, The Exalted, most appropriately describes them:

“Muhammad[s.a.] is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him (the Companions) are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking Bounty from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their faith) is on their faces (foreheads) from the traces of (their) prostration (during prayers).” [48:29]

And after Ali scolds his Shia, he brings up an example so they use it as a role model. He did not find any examples but those of the Sahaba (who are apostates in the opinion of Shia)

“I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them (!!!). They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers. Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks. With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal. It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations. When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched. They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind.” (Those are the one’s whom Kalini claims are Kuffar in Al-Kafi, the most authentic Shia books!) Sermon 34 and some version sermon number mau varies.You may consult about Sermon with yours Ayatullah,Hope Aytullah wont say that Ali was under Taqiya,definately they gonna say that,i say Curse be upon the person and group of person who put lies upon Ali[k.u.w],To Muslims HE was Hyaider and Asad ullah Galib…………………

My Compionions are like stars,whoever you fallow,you will get the salvation[Ayon UL Akhbar,V23,Pp245] it is Shia book You must know it cause you have many MOREEDS including Sunnis.LOL

Actually these Genral Shias and Sunnis doest know the realty about Shiaism otherwise they wont be yours morreds instead they would call you MURTAAD.Walahi……….

You
I have never seen any shia calling any other muslim “Kafir” but I have seen sunni calling shia “kafir” brailvi calling deobandi “kafir” etc.etc…

You have Said..
I have never seen any shia calling any other muslim “Kafir” but I have seen sunni calling shia “kafir” brailvi calling deobandi “kafir” etc.etc…

I say Lanutullah Kazabian.

Syed Shah how long you will deceive yourself and others?????????

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Islam, what I am going to show you is the truth about what the Shi’ites think of us Sunni Muslims. The Shi’ites may tell you that we are the same and that they love us but beware because the Shi’ites also believe that it is okay and that they will get lots of reward for lying to Sunni Muslims about what they beleive in….Below is the truth that the Shi’ites tried to hide from us for so long, it exposes the pure hatred that they hold against the Sunni Muslims. (the Shi’ites practise Taqayyah which means to conceal or lie about their beleifs)

Mohammad bin Al-hassan Toosi reports on the authority of Ishhaq bin Ammar, that Abu Abdullah said “The wealth, the property and everything which belongs to a Sunni is actually yours (is legal for you)” (Tahzib-ul Ahkam, Vol. 2 Kitabul Makasib, p. 116, published in Iran) above in this Shi’ites book it states that all Shi’ites can steal from any Sunni Muslim and that there is nothing wrong with that.

Moallah Khonas reported that Abdullah said “snatch the possessions of a Sunni whereever you find it and hand over my share (ie. One fifth) to me” (Tahzib ul Ahkam). Brothers and Sisters in Islam these Shi’ites think that they can steal our possessions and who knows what else they would like to do to us Sunni Muslims!

The Shi’ites say this regarding Sunni Muslims “Although Allah, the Exalted, has not created a creature worse than a dog, yet a Nasbi (ie. A Sunni) is worse than even a dog.” (Haqqul Yakeen (Persian) Vol 2, P. 516) Here the Shi’ites have said that Sunni Muslims are worse than Dogs!

The Shi’ites say that we will never go to Paradise! “It is contained in several sources of information that they, (the assumed Imams of Shias) said: ‘Should every angel that Allah, the Exalted and Gracious, has created, every prophet that Allah has appointed, every truthfull martyr, (collectively) pray to Allah, the Exalted and Gracious, to release a Nasbi (a Sunni) from the Hell, Allah would never release him.” (Haqqul-Yaqeen, (Arabic), Vol. 2 P. 192) This is what the Shi’ites realy think about us!!! They say that if anyone who is a Sunni Muslim will go to Hell!!! Don’t these Shi’ites know what they are saying??

This is what the Shi’ites say will happen when their so-called Imams will return “When Qaem alaihissalam appears, he will start slaughtering Sunnis and their Ulema before slaughtering the infidels (kuffar).” (By the term “Quem” the Shi’ites mean Imam Mahdi, their twelveth Imam) So here the Shi’ites state that we are not Muslims, and that we are worse than the infidels (kuffar)

So dear Brothers and Sisters, how can the Shi’ites expect us to be friends with them when they Insult us and call us Kauffar behind our backs. So when a Shi’ite Insults a Sunni he is also Insulting all the Scholars and all of those pious people in Islam, can’t these Shi’ites see what is wrong with their own beleifs???
May Allah Guide the Shi’ites to the True Islam, and May Allah show us what the Shi’ites really are, Ameen.

You must be 12rs?What do you call Zaidias shias?Ismailies?Alvis?Nuasaries?Boharas?Kohjas?Tafazlia?mukhtaria?Hussiania?Druze?Ghalis Shias?Guberia?Nazeris?Aghakhanis?
Come with striaght answer otherwise i know what Rafadies say about them ok?
This is the Ijma of 12rs Ulema that beside themselves no one is Muslim.[AL Itajjaj,Tabaris.V3 pp34]Bahar ul Anwar v41 Pp181]

Syed Shah
Though there is Faqi [Jurisprudence differances] between Baralvi and Deobandi,some of the extermist call annovator and likewise,but not kafar.
For yours information there is no such Ijma of the Ulema among Deobandis or Baralvis as you have.
Both are Hanafi Muslims fallowers of Imam Azam Abu Hanifa[r.a]…..got it……….?

You said …
Hazrat umar, yelling on Mohammad(s.a.w) and also another 2nd hadith
he was saying(ma az Allah)Mohammad(s.a.w)is saying b.s. Yes! it is clearly mentioned in Bokhari, \muslim, and Tirmzi.

I say.
that this is Shias old crude question on Sunnis even you know the answer,it was all out of love for Prophet Mohammad[s.a.w] but you try to misguide Muslims now listen

The Shia propagandists make a big fuss over the so-called “incident of the pen and paper” or what they ominously refer to as “Black Thursday”. The Shia exaggerate about the Hadiths on this topic, and use them as some sort of proof against Umar ibn al-Khattab. However, the truth of the matter is that these claims are nothing but the melodramatic antics of the Ghullat gossipers who seek to make a mountain out of an anthill.

The Prophet’s last illness before his final departure from this world lasted around two weeks. During this time, the Prophet’s condition gradually deteriorated and he became bedridden. He experienced a high grade fever, severe headaches, and even fainting spells, slipping into and out of consciousness. The so-called “incident of the pen and paper” occurred four days before the Prophet’s death, on a Thursday.

The Prophet asked for a pen and paper in order to write down some religious advice for the Muslims. However, immediately after asking for the pen and paper, the Prophet fainted and became unconscious. While the Prophet lay unconscious, a man got up to get the pen and paper, but Umar ibn al-Khattab called him away from doing that. Umar felt that they should not bother the Prophet by asking him to write down religious advice, but rather they should allow the Prophet to regain consciousness, get some rest, and recuperate. Therefore, Umar said to the other Muslims: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”

Umar ibn al-Khattab thought–and rightfully so–that the request for a pen and paper no longer applied now that the Prophet had fainted. Instead of getting the pen and paper, Umar felt that they should allow the Prophet to rest.

It is amazing how much drama the Shia propagandists can create, and how easily they can misguide people. The explanation to this event is so simple and straightforward that it is very strange that the Shia do not understand this! All that we must do is ask the Shia to correlate the event to their own lives, which more often than not makes impotent their arguments. Ask a Shia for example if he would tolerate a man cursing his wife, and he would say no; then we wonder why they themselves curse the wife of the Prophet! Likewise, when it comes to the incident of the pen and paper, we ask them to correlate the event to their own lives.

Let us consider the following scenario: a teacher is giving a lesson to his student, and he asks his student to bring a piece of chalk to write with on the chalkboard. But then the teacher faints and collapses. Now tell us: is the student going to walk outside the room to find the piece of chalk? Would any sane person do that? Instead, the student would quickly rush to the teacher’s side, try to resuscitate him, bring him a pillow, raise his legs, etc. Now, when the teacher regains consciousness, would the student immediately thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand and say “teach us!” Surely not! Instead, the school nurse would be rushed into the room, the teacher would be transported to the medical unit, and the teacher would be given a medical leave for the day in order to rest. Even if the teacher insisted that he was feeling better and that he could resume the lesson, the others would convince the teacher that he should take the day off and rest instead.

Now then, let us say that one of the students in the classroom is worried about his exam the next day, so he tries to thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand as soon as the teacher is regaining consciousness. What would the other students say to such a student, other than get angry at him and tell him to stop worrying about his own self but rather worry about the condition of the teacher? The students would tell him not to worry about the lesson and that “the textbook would be sufficient for us to study from for the exam.”

Can anyone imagine a teacher fainting, then regaining consciousness, and immediately writing on the chalkboard with a piece of chalk? Tullaab al-ilm (students of knowledge) do not even approach their Shuyookh (scholars) when they (the Shuyookh) are tired or sleepy, as this is considered rude to pester them at such a time. Even if the Shaykh insists on teaching, the student will say out of courtesy that “you should rest, Shaykh, and we can do the lesson tomorrow.” This is common etiquette; now imagine the situation when a Shaykh would be lying on the bed unconscious; would any student ask him to give a religious lesson in such a condition?

After the Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he immediately fainted and it is then that Umar told the people not to get those things as the Prophet was in great pain. It would be, in Umar’s opinion , criminal to pester the Prophet in such a situation. The people were exhorting the Prophet for advice even as he was in between fainting spells. Any doctor alive today would say that if a patient is in and out of consciousness, then such a patient should be stabilized first and under no circumstances should the patient be making speeches, straining himself, or taking stress of any kind; such a patient should rest.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s final illness lasted eleven days during which he was hospitalized. His Shia followers emptied out his hospital room and did not trouble him with the concerns of the state. No man was allowed to disturb him or pester him, even though the political situation at the time very much required the input of the country’s leader. How is it then that the Shia would like their Ayatollah Khomeini to be treated with more courtesy than the Prophet of Allah? Surely the Prophet is superior to any Prophet leave aside Ayatollah, and if the Ayatollah should not be disturbed during his final illness, then surely we are even more cautious with the Prophet of Allah.

To give a simple everyday example, if a man asks his son to give him the T.V. remote, but has a heart attack immediately after saying that, then the son would think that the heart attack takes precedence over and cancels the request for the remote. Instead of giving the remote, the son would rush to his father’s side. Common sense dictates that the Prophet’s request for the pen and paper does not apply any more, as the fact that he fainted takes precedence over that request. If the Prophet was in good health, and asked for a pen and paper but the people refused him, then that situation would be different. But here, the Prophet fainted after his request and that changed the situation altogether.

This is such a straightforward matter that it sometimes boggles the mind how the Shia can create so much outcry over this so-called “incident” of the pen and paper. Anyone who was in Umar ibn al-Khattab’s shoes would have said the same thing as he did, evidenced by the many everyday examples i have cited above.

Umar ibn al-Khattab was the Prophet’s father-in-law, and as such, he too was very worried about the Prophet’s health and wellbeing, more so than the Prophet was worried about himself. In his final few days, the Prophet was having a difficult time talking, for it caused a great deal of pain to do that. We read:

When the Apostle’s illness became severe, he (i.e. a Sahabi) and the men came down to Medinah and he went into the Apostle(’s house) who was unable to speak. He (the Prophet) began to lift his hand towards heaven and then bring it down upon him, from which he (the Sahabi) knew that he (the Prophet) was blessing him (the Sahabi).

(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.680)

The perceptive reader should consider that on Thursday the Prophet was in more intense pain than ever before, and it is likely that the Prophet asked for a pen and paper because he was having a hard time speaking loudly and instead he wished to softly dictate what to write to the people closest to him so that they could convey the written message to the others. We see that it was at this point in time that the Prophet was having unbearable pain and could not talk without unbearable discomfort; it was for this reason that Umar ibn al-Khattab wished that the Prophet would not talk as it would cause him unnecessary pain. This was a sign of love and affection, not of rebellion or opposition.

The Prophet Fainted According to Shia Sources

The point that most Shia propagandists never wish to mention is the fact that the Prophet fainted immediately after making his request. Perhaps some of them would try to deny this, but we find that it is written in their own books. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:

He (the Prophet) fainted from the fatigue which had come upon him and the sorrow which possessed him.

He remained unconscious for a short time while the Muslims wept and his wives and the women and the children of the Muslims and all of those present raised great cries of lamentation. The Apostle of Allah recovered consciousness and looked at them. Then he said: “Bring me ink and parchment so that I may write for you, after which you will never go astray.”

Again he fainted and one of those present rose to look for ink and parchment.

“Go back,” Umar ordered him.

(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130)

Syed Shah u must be shocked to know that?????

Umar Did Not Dispute With the Prophet But Ali did.

When the Prophet asked Ali (may Allah be well-pleased with him) to erase something during the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Ali refused to do so and disputed with the Prophet about that.But we beleive Ali did it out of his love for Prophet.[s.a.w] On the other hand, Umar did not dispute with the Prophet: when Umar said what he said, the Prophet was actually unconscious. It was the other Sahabah that Umar was addressing when he said: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”

Umar felt–and we agree with him on this–that the Prophet’s request was no longer applicable due to the fact that the Prophet fell unconscious. This is not a matter of disobedience but rather it is simply Umar’s Ijtihad that the request was no longer applicable in this new situation (i.e. the Prophet was now unconscious). Furthermore, Umar’s position was based out of his deep love for the Prophet, as Umar hated to see him in pain and distress.
Omer said that He[s.a.w] is delirious” that the Shia propagandist will use against the Ahlus Sunnah. Before we decide who said those words, let us be clear what was meant by the words “is he delirious?” Some of the Shia get overly emotional over the word “delirious”; in actuality, the meaning of the word “delirium” is simply “disturbance of consciousness”
In fact, delirium does not have a psychiatric etiology, but rather it is classified as an “organic” or “physiological” condition. One of the commonest causes of such a disturbance of consciousness is a high grade fever. Patients who suffer from high grade fevers will oftentimes have clouding of consciousness, and this is what is known as delirium, irrespective of any other associations that may or may not be present. In other words, the one who is in a state of delirium is not considered a lunatic or a psychiatric nut, but rather a patient suffering from a severe medical condition of a biological–not psychiatric–origin.

tahajara; ihtajara :- To depart from one another, separate, or forsake one another; become alienated

(source: Wortabet’s Arabic – English Dictionary)

In other words, the man who asked “is the Prophet delirious” did not mean that the Prophet was talking nonsense or that he had gone crazy. Instead, the man was simply asking if the Prophet was conscious or not, and we know from Shaykh Mufid’s description of the event that the Prophet was unconscious.

The words “is he delirious” appear in Sahih Bukhari, as follows:

…The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, “Fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, “What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him (to understand his state).”

(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716)

In the above narration, someone asked “is he delirious?” By this, he meant “is he in a state of altered consciousness?” In Sahih Muslim, we read:

The illness of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on Thursday), and he said: “Come to me, so that I should write for you a document that you may not go astray after me.” They (the Companions around him) disputed, and it is not right to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: “How is (Allah’s Apostle)? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from him (this point).”

(Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4014)

And once again:

…He (the narrator) said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: “Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and ink pot), so that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray.” They said: “Allah’s Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness.”

(Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4015)

The man who asked this question was simply wondering if the Prophet was conscious or not. He did not mean to imply any disrespect. And that is why the man said “ask him (to understand his state of consciousness)” and “try to learn from him (this point)”. This is a clear proof that the man did not mean that the Prophet was talking nonsense, because if that were the case, then there would be no point in asking the Prophet that. Medical practitioners and psychiatrists say that those who suffer from psychosis (i.e. a break from reality, hallucinations, etc.) do not have “insight” into their illness: they themselves will not admit that they are “crazy”. This is common sense: one does not ask a person who is talking nonsense if they are talking nonsense.

The man said “ask him” and “try to learn from him” which means that he wished for them to see if the Prophet was conscious. In the medical world, doctors routinely use the “Glasgow Coma Scale” (GCS exam) in order to test for the patient’s level of consciousness. The GCS exam is done by asking the patient various questions to see if he responds, and his responses confirm his level of consciousness. In plain English that means that to check if a man is conscious or not, the best thing to do is to ask him if he is OK. In fact, this is the first step of CPR: in order to check if the patient is conscious or not, the first thing that is done is that the person is asked “are you OK?” If he responds, all is well; if not, CPR maneuvers are begun.

To conclude the matter, the Shia should not get overly emotional over the word “delirious”, because all that was meant by this is “consciousness” or lack thereof. And it was Shaykh Mufid himself who said that the Prophet was unconscious during this time. He wrote in his book (emphasis is ours):

He (the Prophet) fainted from the fatigue which had come upon him and the sorrow which possessed him. He remained unconscious for a short time…The Apostle of Allah recovered consciousness and looked at them. Then he said: “Bring me ink and parchment so that I may write for you, after which you will never go astray.”

Again he fainted and one of those present rose to look for ink and parchment.

“Go back,” Umar ordered him. “He is delirious.”

The man went back. Those present regretted the dilatoriness (they had shown) in bringing ink and parchment and rebuked each other. They used to say: “We belong to God and to Him we will return, but we have become anxious about disobedience to the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family.”

When he (the Prophet), peace be on him, recovered consciousness…

(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130)

This narration found in one of the Shia’s most reliable books is the end of the debate altogether. Based on this narration above, we find that the order of events was:

1) The Prophet asked for a pen and paper.
2) Next, the Prophet fainted.
3) After that, a man got up to get the pen and paper.
4) Umar ordered him not to. (This Shia book attributes the word “delirious” to Umar but we know this part to be incorrect, as it was someone else who said that.)
5) The statement “he is delirious” is said.
6) The people bickered.
7) Only then did the Prophet recover consciousness.

From this account it becomes clear that the words “is he delirious” were said when the Prophet was unconscious (i.e. before he recovered consciousness)! Does an unconscious person talk? Surely not! This is the coup de grâce to the Shia argument, and so whenever a Shia creates a ruckus about the words “is he delirious”, then we direct him here. If the words “is he delirious” were said while the Prophet was unconscious, then there is no issue of “nonsense talk” as an unconscious person cannot talk let alone talk nonsense. On the other hand, understanding the word “delirium” to be be a disorder in consciousness makes total sense; a man who is slipping into unconsciousness is said to be “departing” (hajara) from the people and this world.

To conclude the matter, the man who asked the question “is he delirious” meant to ask about the Prophet’s level of consciousness, and nothing more. He did not say it in a sarcastic or demeaning tone, but rather he was asking a sincere question. This man cannot be blamed for that any more than the Shia’s own Shaykh Mufid can be, for both of them were indicating that the Prophet had slipped into a state of unconsciousness.

Ali Had Lost His Senses According to the Shia?

The Shia create a very big outcry over the words “is he delirious.” Let us analyze whether or not their indignation is over those words or rather simply over who said them. In the famous Sharh Nahjul Balagha, we read a Shia narration in which Ali ibn Abi Talib was wounded and bleeding; Ali ordered his son, Abdullah, to rub his cheek on the ground (i.e. in order to stop the bleeding). According to the Shia, when Abdullah heard this request, he thought that his father had lost his senses and he refused the request. We read the following Shia narration:

When the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) was wounded, people turned aside from him. He (Ali) was spattered all over with blood and he had not offered his morning prayers (yet). He was told: “Prayer, O Amir al-Mu’mineen!”

He (Ali) raised his head and said: “A person who missed his prayer has no share in Islam!” Then he stood up with a jerk and blood gushed out of the wound. He said: “Give me a piece of cloth.” He wrapped it around the wound, offered his prayer and remembered Allah; then he spoke to his son Abdullah: “O Abdullah, rub my cheek on the ground.”

Abdullah says:

“I did not do it. I thought he had lost his senses! He (Ali) repeated the same thing: ‘My son, rub my cheek on the ground.’ I did not do it again. He (Ali) repeated himself the third time, (saying): ‘Why don’t you rub my cheek on the ground?’ Now I could see that he was in his senses. He himself could not do it out of pain and weakness. I touched his cheek to the ground. I saw the outer hairs of his beard; they were clogged with dust. He cried until the dust gummed onto his eyes.”

Is not the Shia anger over the word “delirious” a bit pretentious when we find that Ali’s own progeny, one of the Ahlel Bayt, says that their first Infallible Imam “has lost his senses?” It is clear from this narration that the meaning behind these words was that Abdullah had thought that his father had gone crazy; Abdullah thought that Ali was making an absurd and nonsensical request.

The Shia believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib was infallible just as the Prophet was; as such, should they not create an outcry over one of Ali’s own sons asking if he had lost his senses? Why do the Shia excuse Ali’s son, Abdullah, but then they spit their venom at Umar ibn al-Khattab for supposedly saying something similar? In fact, the words “is he delirious” are much less offensive than “he has lost his senses.” It should be remembered that the Shia have a very high opinion of Abdullah who is the son of their Infallible Imam; therefore, whatever excuse they come up for Abdullah for what he said, then surely the same excuse can be applied to the man who wondered if the Prophet was delirious.

The perceptive Readers should note that the Sunnis never bring up this Shia Hadith to malign Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him). It is not in the nature of the Ahlus Sunnah to backbite and slander, especially not the great heroes of Islam. And yet if this same narration was in reference to Umar instead of Abdullah, then we would find the Shia using it as some sort of “proof” against Umar! We would find the Shia propagandists poking at us with sticks and asking quizzically: “What did Umar mean by saying that ‘he lost his senses?’” Such is the double-standard of the Shia. This is the two-faced nature of the disingenuous Shia, a people who specialize in being partisan and biased.

The Shia propagandists claim that the Prophet asked for a pen and paper so that he could write his will in which he would supposedly appoint Ali as his successor. They accuse Umar of preventing the Prophet from doing that.

If the Prophet was really going to write a will appointing Ali as his successor, then why didn’t the Prophet do that before his death? The event of the pen and paper happened on a Thursday, whereas the Prophet died on a Monday. The Prophet had more than three days to write such a will, and yet he did no such thing; no Sunni or Shia source indicates that the Prophet wrote this will in the three days after the event of Thursday. The Shia claim that Umar prevented the Prophet from writing about Ali in his will, so we wish to ask: was Umar ibn al-Khattab with the Prophet 24/7 for three days straight? Of course not. We know that this is not the case, and even Shia narratives tell about how Ali and a few close family members were with the Prophet alone in his final days. And yet, the Prophet did not write any such document in his last three days.

What prevented the Prophet from writing this will to Ali during those three days after the event of Thursday? What is interesting–and a point that negates the Shia claims completely–is that Ali himself never claimed that the Prophet was writing a will for him. No reliable Sunni or Shia account exists in which Ali ever mentions the “event of Thursday” as a proof for his Caliphate. Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr as well as the Caliphate of Uthman, and in both instances he and his advocates brought forth certain proofs as to why he (Ali) should be the Caliph over them (i.e. Abu Bakr and Uthman). And yet, never did Ali mention the incident of the pen and paper; surely if it is as the Shia claim it was, then Ali and his party would have mentioned that day of Thursday as a strong proof for Ali’s claim to the Caliphate, and yet the Hadith and historical literature is devoid of any such references in the lifetime of Ali.

The truth of the matter is that the Prophet did not say what it was that he wished to write on that day, and nobody knows what it was, so why and how do the Shia claim that they know what it was? The matter is part of al-Ghaib (the Unseen), knowledge of which is denied to humanity, so whoever claims to know with certainty what that information was can only be a liar and/or fool. Today, we see how the Shia claim that the matter was the appointment of Ali, and yet how can they know what the matter was when the Prophet never mentioned it, nor did Ali, Abbas, Ibn Abbas, Hasan, or Hussain ever claim to know what it was.

If Ali knew that the Prophet wrote a will in his favor, then why did he not use this as a proof for his Caliphate? When Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Uthman, he (Ali) brought forth many proofs to bolster his claims against the two, and yet never did he mention any will to be written in his name. We find that the Shia narrative is based on pure guesswork: what basis do they have to claim that it was the appointment of Ali? Why couldn’t we claim that that the Prophet wanted to write down something else such as the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power) or even the appointment of Abu Bakr? If the Shia insist that the Prophet was going to write his will in favor of Ali, then what prevents us from claiming that in actuality it was for Abu Bakr? There is no proof either way. If the Shia bring up proofs, then we too have our proofs, such as the nomination of Imam Abu Bakr as Imam of the prayers!

Readers Please read this………

What prevented Ali from giving the Prophet a pen and paper in the last three days of his life? The Prophet had the entire rest of Thursday to write that will, as well as the next day (Friday), the next day after that (Saturday), and the day after that (Sunday). And yet, where is that mysterious will? Why didn’t the Prophet write it? Let us assume that the Prophet wished to write a will in favor of Ali so that the people would never be misguided about that. Then wouldn’t the Prophet be misguiding the people by not writing that will? A written will in favor of Ali would have ended all debate on the issue of Caliphate and served as a strong proof for Ali’s Imamah, and yet we find that no such will was ever written, so who should the Shia blame other than the Prophet for not writing that will? If the duty was placed on the Prophet’s shoulders to will the leadership to Ali, then it was the Prophet who failed to do that, and it was Ali who failed to beseech the Prophet to write that will in the last three days of his life. Indeed, the Prophet gave much advice in those three days, and he advised many things on those three days–even up until his last breath–yet the Prophet never returned to talk about the matter of Thursday. Why not?

Why Didn’t the Prophet Write the Document?

The idea that the Prophet didn’t write the document because the Sahabah prevented him is false; nobody could prevent the Prophet from delivering his Message. Instead, the reason the Prophet did not write the document was that the people were bickering amongst themselves and because of that, Allah removed the Baraqah (blessing) from that. This is similar to what happened when the Prophet was about to inform the people about the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power). We read:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 32, Number 240:

Narrated Ubada bin As-Samit:

The Prophet came out to inform us about the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) but two Muslims were quarreling with each other. So, the Prophet said, “I came out to inform you about the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) but such-and-such persons were quarreling, so the news about it had been taken away; yet that might be for your own good, so search for it on the 29th, 27th and 25th (of Ramadan).”

It should be remembered that the date of Laylat al-Qadr is considered something that would have led Muslims into Paradise, and the knowledge of that would have saved many people from Hell-Fire. Imam Malik said:

Allah’s Messenger looked back at the previous communities and saw that his community lived for a much shorter period in comparison to them. He was concerned about how his community would be able to gain as many rewards as those of the previous communities. So when Allah the Exalted saw the concerns in the heart of His Beloved, then he (the Messenger) was given Laylat al-Qadr, which is more virtuous than a thousand months.”

(Muwatta of Imam Malik)

An entire chapter of the Quran is entitled “Al-Qadr”, in which Allah says:

“We have indeed revealed this (Message) on the Night of Power. And what will explain to you what the Night of Power is? The Night of Power is better than a thousand months.”

(Quran, 97:1-3)

The Prophet said:

“Whoever stood in prayer on Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power), in faith and hoping for a reward from Allah, he will have all of his previous sins forgiven.”

(Narrated in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)

The Prophet said:

“In it (the holy month) is a night better than a thousand months; whoever loses the benefits of it has lost something irreplaceable.”

(Narrated by Imam Ahmad and An-Nasaa’i)

So we see that this matter is very similar to the issue that the Prophet wished to write down on the event of Thursday. The words “whoever loses the benefits of it has lost something irreplaceable” are similar to the words “after which you will never go astray.” And yet, in both instances, Allah withdrew the knowledge from the people. When the Prophet saw two people bickering, Allah withdrew the knowledge of Laylat al-Qadr because by that time, the Baraqah (blessing) in that knowledge had passed. Similarly, during the incident of the pen and paper, the time for that knowledge had passed and the Baraqah (blessing) had been removed from it. Because of that, the Prophet did not write for them the document.

It should be noted that–like the date of Laylat al-Qadr–the denial of this knowledge “might be for your own good”, and this is based on our understanding that Allah does all things for the betterment of humanity. When Prophet Adam violated Allah’s Command by nearing the tree, Allah banished him and his wife from Paradise. The Christians argue that this was a punishment from God, and yet this is not an Islamic belief; Muslims believe that Allah forgave Prophet Adam and his wife, and that the banishment from Paradise was not a punishment but a necessary chain of events through which Allah wished to enact His Divine Plan. In the longterm, the banishment of Prophet Adam from Paradise was a mercy upon him and was for his own betterment.

Ibn Kathir says:

Some people believe that the reason why mankind does not dwell in Paradise is that Adam was disobedient and that if it had not been for this sin, we could have been there all along. These are naive fictions because when Allah wanted to create Adam, He said to the angels, “I shall make a vicegerent on the earth.” He did not say, “I shall make a vicegerent in Paradise.”

Adam’s descent on earth, then, was not due to degradation but rather it was dignified descent. Allah knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree and descend to earth. He knew that Satan would rape their innocence. That experience was essential for their life on earth; it was a cornerstone of their vicegerency. It was meant to teach Adam, Eve, and their progeny that it was Satan who had caused them to be expelled from Paradise and that the road to Paradise can only be reached by obedience to Allah and enmity to Satan.

(Qisas al-Ambiya, Ibn Kathir)

Playing the Shia Game

On what basis do the Shia say that the Prophet wished to write about Ali in his will? If the Shia were to claim that, then we Sunnis could easily claim that it was actually Abu Bakr that the Prophet wished to appoint on that day. How easy is that! In fact, Imam Nawawi states in his Sharh that Sufyan ibn Uyana said that some of the people of knowledge stated that the Prophet intended to appoint Abu Bakr as the Caliph. And then Imam Nawawi states that the Prophet chose to withdrew this knowledge because Allah’s decree would be fulfilled in a better way. If the Prophet had appointed Abu Bakr as Caliph over the Muslims, then the masses would have felt that this was an act of tyranny, as the Arabs of that time were used to nominating their own leader through mutual consultation and popular sovereignty. Therefore, argued some scholars, the withdrawal of the knowledge of Abu Bakr’s appointment was for the benefit of the people, so that they would nominate their own leader themselves as is more just.

If the Shia claim that the document was about Ali, then what prevents us from claiming that it was for Abu Bakr? And we have greater proof, because after this incident, it was Abu Bakr–not Ali–who was nominated by the Prophet as Imam of the prayers. And we know that it was Umar who began to lead the prayers, when the Prophet stopped him from that, in order that he (the Prophet) could nominate Abu Bakr alone to do that. So if the Shia would like to paint the fictitious story that Umar was preventing the nomination of Ali, then why couldn’t another person claim that Umar was preventing the nomination of Abu Bakr? The truth of the matter is that one can claim just about anything. We read in Imam Nawawi’s Sharh:

Qadhi Iyad said: Bakr, the nephew of Abdul Wahid, differed and claimed that he (the Prophet) specified Abu Bakr, and Ibn Al-Rawandi said that he specified Abbas, Shia and Rafidhis said he specified Ali; and these are (all) false claims! (These claims are) impudent forger[ies], and (to say such things is) an audacious obstinacy against the senses…Neither Ali, nor Abbas, nor Abu Bakr claimed that there was a will (i.e from the Prophet regarding one of them being a successor) at any point in time. Ali and Abbas have agreed upon all of this (i.e. that there was no will) without any obstacle preventing them from mentioning the will had it existed…Had it happened (i.e. any of the Sahabah claiming a will), it (such a thing) would have been reported, for it is one of the important matters.

(Sharh of Imam Nawawi)

Ali Himself Did Not Know

Tabari writes what happened after the incident of the pen and paper:

Ali ibn Abi Talib went out from the Messenger of Allah during his illness in which he died. The people asked him: “O Abu Hasan, how did the Messenger of Allah wake up?”

“By the Grace of Allah he woke up [and he had] recovered [from his illness]”, he replied.

Al-Abbas held him by his hand and said: “Don’t you see that in three days you will be an ‘abd al-’asa [i.e. a lowly despicable person]? It seems to me that the Messenger of Allah will die from this sickness of his, for I know how the faces of Abdul Muttalib’s sons look at the time of death. So return to the Messenger of Allah, and ask him who will get this authority (i.e. the Caliphate). If it is to be with us, we shall come to know that (from him); if it is to be with others, he will command accordingly and entrust (that person) with us.”

Ali replied: “By Allah, if we asked the Messenger of Allah and he denied it to us, the people will never give it to us. By Allah, I will never ask the Messenger of Allah.”

(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.175-176)

The Shia narrative is that the Prophet appointed Ali at Ghadir Khumm, so therefore if we accept this, then there should be no doubt at all in the minds of Ali or Abbas as to who the Caliphate would be entrusted to. It is perplexing then that three days before the Prophet’s death, Ali and Abbas are not sure who the Prophet will appoint. Perhaps the Shia will not accept the narration from Tabari as a proof, but this same incident–of Abbas asking the Prophet who will get the Caliphate–is narrated by Shaykh Mufid in Kitab Al-Irshad:

“If this matter [of leadership] is to be given to us after you, then tell us,” Al-Abbas asked him. “If you (O Prophet) know that we are to be overcome, then give us the decision.”

(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.131)

You have said……….
By the way, you will be surprised to hear that Qadri and Geelani’s are 100% shia but…but..
the reason I am saying this because our family is not only Qadri but also we have millions of sunni
MOREEDS, who come to our forefathers tomb and pray……………………

I say,
Who the hell you can say that Qadri Geelani are 100% Shias………..Bulshit……….

Sheikh Abdul Qadr Geelani[r.a] has given Historic Fatwa in his famous book [Ghaniba Taybian]
he has said[No doubt SHIAS[RAFADIS] are out of the fold of Islam]
So you must be in truma about this Comments or Fatwa on you…………You say shia.

He was a Imam Ahemed bin Hambal[r.a] fallower,Qaderia Salsala strated from himmmmmmmmmm.
Sheikh ul Islam Tahir Ul Qadiri is Shia?lololololol
Qadria,Chestia,Naqashbandia,Sarwardia are all Sunni Taraqat…..Jealousy Chimpenzeee
You ignorant misguided Rafadi,who proudly,cleverly under the Taqiya you are talking about unity and on other side you blaming Muslims[Imams] to be disobdient,Munafiq,shias…………You are just using Islam Name,You are not Muslim…………
As the 8 Infallaible Imam,Imam Reza[r.a] have said about you[shias] that In matter of fact who claims to be our shias are APOSTATES.[Rajal Kashi] Many more Fatwas on you[SHIAS] from yours own Imams,read my early coments above.

You have said……….
By the way, you will be surprised to hear that Qadri and Geelani’s are 100% shia but…but..
the reason I am saying this because our family is not only Qadri but also we have millions of sunni
MOREEDS, who come to our forefathers tomb and pray……………………

I say.
May Allah curse be upon liers.

Readers look at lies of this Hypocrate Syed Shah

Dr Tahir ul Qadri about the Imamat of Abu Bakr Saqid[RA]

Dr Tahir ul Qadri about Umer Farooq[r.a]

Dr Tahir ul Qadri dismissing Shias claim

DID THE PROPHET (PBUH) CHOSE SOMEONE TO BE CALIPH?

Zikr In Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani[r.a] Mosque – Baghdad

Last knel in Yours Claim Cofen.

How Dr Tahir ul Qadri works for Sunniyat

Friday Sermon, Abd Al-Kadr al-Kilani Mosque, Baghdad, Iraq.

Qadiyanis are far better then Shias in this regard
Listen to Mirza Tahir ahemed,Supreme leader of Qadiyanis.lolololol

Alleged Appointment of Hadhrat Ali as the First Khalifa

You have said….
but..
the reason I am saying this because our family is not only Qadri but also we have millions of sunni
MOREEDS, who come to our forefathers tomb and pray……………………

Yours forefathers must be great saints????
End of the day they have Millions SUNNIS MOREED…ISNT THIS WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?

Like me the READERS must want to know yours Forefathers Name and Pedegree……..ANY REFENCE Please quote that they[yours forefathers] misguiding the Muslims.Millions SUNNIS MOREED………..lol

Listen! All of those who are considering Zia ul Haq as main Culprit..Why u ppl are silent about Yahya ans Iskindar Mirza..Both were Shia and responsible for disintegration of Pakistan.Wahabis are true Mulims unlike you bralvis who bow before graves..gussshhh!!

@Usman Hyder,
I fully agree with you brother…….
History has been the witness of Shias betrayal to Ahlelbayt, and Muslims and how they back stab Islam as king of France Henry IV has said that Many thanks to Shias disloyality to Islam,Had there been NO Shias. whole Europe would have been Muslim land and all Europians would have been Muslims,[The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe]By Daniel Goffman

Listen! All of those who are considering Zia ul Haq as main Culprit..Why u ppl are silent about Yahya ans Iskindar Mirza..Both were Shia and responsible for disintegration of Pakistan.

This is classic example and clear evidence of Shias Hypocracy..

Though i disagree the Zia Ul haq took over in his Coup de tate,i am agaisnt Dictatorship.But i dont like when Shias blame his fault cause he was SUNNI and forget what the Tyrant Iskindar miraza and Yahya Khan were????Actually the dont forget but deliberatly ignore.They say they were dictators but no problem cause they were SHIAS….LOL..SHIAS BIG TIME HYPOCRATES.

As Hazrat Jafar Sadiq[r.a] Shias claim to be their 6th infallible Imam have said that [ No verse in Quran have reaveled about Hypocrates except only for those who claims to be SHIAS](Rajal Kasi)This hadis has been declared Saheeh by Majlisi in his Martul Uqal and by Shaykh Mufid in Kitab Al-Irshad,one of the two Grand Shias Scholars.

You have said.
Wahabis are true Mulims unlike you bralvis who bow before graves..gussshhh!!

I say..
May Allah Guide us all and eliminate any innovations if we have in Muslim Ummah.Unity of Muslim Ummah is very very Important and need of the Hour.
May Allah Keep us on the way of Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w] His Family and Compionions and his Rightly Guided Chaliphas and all those who have followed them.Amin